DEC  5  1921 


Division  BSZbd'O 

.4-.  H4I 


4 


OTHER  BOOKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


THE  GIFT  OF  TONGUES. 

PAUL  AND  HIS  EPISTLES. 

JOHN  AND  HIS  WRITINGS. 

THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS  AND  THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS. 

GREAT  CHARACTERS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


Biblical  Introduction  Series 

The 
New  Testament  Epistles 

Hebrews,  James,  First  Peter,  Second  Peter,  Judc 


By. 
D.  A.  HAYES 

Profciior  of  New  Teatament  Interpretation  in  the  Graduate  School  of  Theolofy 
Garrett  Biblical  Inititute 


THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN 

NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI 


Copyright,  192 1,  by 
D.  A.  HAYES 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


TO 

FREDERICK  CARL  EISELEN 

MY    COLLEAGUE    IN    THE    FACULTY 
MY  COLLABORATOR  IN  THIS  SERIES 


CONTENTS 

Foreword 1 1 

PART  I.     THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

I.  An  Estimate  of  the  Epistle 17 

^    I.  The  Only  Anonymous  Epistle 18 

-  2.  First  Rank  in  Literature 19 

—  3.  Most  Important  Single  Epistle 21 

—  4.  Interesting  in  Content 22 

5.  Dividing  the  Church 24 

-    II.  The  Early  History  of  the  Epistle  ix  the  East 24 

^  III.  The  Early  History  of  the  Epistle  in  the  West 28 

IV.  Opinions  of  Modern  Scholars 30 

V.  Arguments  Against  Pauline  Authorship 31 

1.  The  DiflFerence  of  Style 31 

2.  The  Difference  of  Language 35 

3.  DiflFerence  in  Method  of  Argument 38 

4.  Different  Beginning  and  Ending 38 

—  5.  The  Use  of  a  Different  Bible  Text 39 

6.  Difference  in  Quotation 40 

7.  Alexandrian  Influence 41 

—  8.  Ignorance  of  Temple  Ritual 48 

9.  Second  Generation  of  Believers 49 

VI.  Relation  to  Paul  and  the  Pauline  Theology 51 

VII.  Who  Is  the  Author? 55 

VIII.  To  Whom  Was  the  Epistle  Written? 67 

IX.  Place  of  Writing? 73 

X.  Time  of  Writing 73 

XI.  Purpose  of  Writing 76 

XII.  Authorities  for  the  Text  of  the  Epistle 77 

XIII.  Outline  of  the  Epistle 77 

PART  II.     THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES 

I.  Characteristics  of  the  Epistle 81 

1.  Jewish 81 

2.  Authoritative 87 

3.  Practical 88 


;  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

II.  Author  of  the  Epistle 90 

III.  Style  of  the  Epistle 93 

1.  Its  Plainness 93 

2.  Its  Good  Greek 95 

3.  Its  Vividness 97 

4.  Its  Duadiplosis 99 

5.  Its  Poetic  Conceptions 99 

6.  Its  Unlikeness  to  Paul loi 

7.  Its  Likeness  to  Jesus loi 

IV.  Date  of  the  Epistle 105 

V.  History  of  the  Epistle 107 

VI.  The  Message  of  the  Epistle  to  Our  Times 114 

1.  To  the  Pietists 114 

2.  To  the  Sociologists 115 

3.  To  the  Students  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  Jesus. .  115 

PART  III.     THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER 

I.  The  Apostle  Peter 121 

1.  A  Likable  Man 121 

2.  A  Hasty  Man 121 

3.  A  Going  Man 131 

4.  A  Loyal  Man 135 

5.  A  Rock  Man 138 

6.  A  Growing  Man 141 

7.  The  Apostle  of  Hope 143 

8.  A  Pen  Portrait  of  Peter 143 

II.  Peter's  Personality  in  the  Epistle 145 

III.  Dependence  Upon  the  Pauline  Epistles 161 

IV.  Date  of  the  Epistle 164 

V.  Place  of  Writing 164 

VI.  Style  of  the  Epistle 167 

VII.  One  Peculiar  Doctrine 176 

VIII.  Genuineness  of  the  Epistle 182 

PART  IV.     THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER" 

I.  Uncertainty  as  to  Authenticity 187 

II.  Differences  between  First  Peter  and  "Second  Peter"  193 

III.  Dependence  upon  the  Epistle  of  Jude 199 

IV.  Dependence  upon  Josephus 202 

V.  Dependence  upon  Philo 206 


CONTENTS  9 

PAGE 

VI.  Dependence  upon  Clement  of  Rome 206 

VII.  Dependence  upon  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter 207 

VIII.  Other  Indications  of  Late  Origin 210 

IX.  Peculiarities  of  Doctrine 215 

X.  Conclusions  of  Various  Scholars 217 

XI.  Place  of  Writing,  Date,  and  Destination 220 

PART  V.    THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE 

I.  Peculiarities 225 

1.  Triple  Arrangement 225 

2.  Peculiar  Expressions 227 

3.  Apocryphal  Quotations 228 

II.  The  Apocryphal  Authorities 229 

1.  The  Book  of  Enoch 229 

2.  The  Assumption  of  Moses 231 

III.  General  Characteristics 233 

1 .  Poetic  Feeling 233 

2.  Literary  Merit 233 

3.  Sternness  of  Tone 234 

IV.  The  Author 235 

V.  Authenticity 238 

VI.  Purpose  of  Writing 240 

A  Closing  Word 241 

Bibliography 247 

Indexes 255 


FOREWORD 

This  volume  concludes  our  studies  in  the  special  introduc- 
tion to  the  New  Testament  books.  The  first  in  the  series, 
Paul  and  His  Epistles,  found  that  the  personahty  of  the 
apostle  was  apparent  in  all  of  the  thirteen  epistles  ascribed 
to  him.  The  second  book,  John  and  His  Writings,  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  personal  characteristics  of  the 
Boanerges  and  beloved  disciple  could  be  traced  in  all  of  the 
five  books  which  bear  his  name.  The  third  volume.  The 
Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  combined  a  study 
of  the  personalities  of  their  authors  with  the  study  of  the 
characteristics  of  the  books  themselves.  In  this  fourth  and 
concluding  volume  the  method  of  the  preceding  books  has 
been  continued  in  the  study  of  James,  First  Peter,  and 
Jude ;  but  it  fails  us  in  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the 
so-called  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter,"  since  the  one  is  of 
anonymous  and  the  other  of  pseudonymous  authorship. 

The  epistles  discussed  in  this  volume  are  not  upon  the 
same  sure  basis  of  canonicity  represented  by  most  of  the 
other  books  of  the  New  Testament.  The  oldest  canonical 
list  we  have,  that  of  the  Muratorian  Fragment,  omits  He- 
brews, James,  First  Peter,  and  "Second  Peter."  The  Bible 
of  the  Western  Church,  the  Itala,  which  was  the  second  cen- 
tury translation  of  the  New  Testament  books  into  the  Latin, 
did  not  contain  Hebrews,  James,  and  "Second  Peter."  The 
Bible  of  the  Eastern  Church,  the  Peshito,  which  was  the 
second  century  translation  of  the  New  Testament  books 
into  the  Syriac,  omitted  "Second  Peter,"  Second  and  Third 
John,  Jude,  and  Revelation.  Origen  in  the  third  cen- 
tury classed  "Second  Peter,"  Second  and  Third  John, 
James,  and  Jude  among  the  "doubtful"  books.  Eusebius 
II 


12  FOREWORD 

in  the  fourth  century  still  placed  James,  "Second  Peter," 
Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation  among  the 
"Anti-legomena,"  the  books  regarded  as  of  somewhat  doubt- 
ful authenticity  by  many. 

If  we  put  the  books  contained  in  the  Itala  and  the  Peshito 
together  we  have  all  the  books  of  our  New  Testament,  ex- 
cept "Second  Peter."  These  Bibles  of  the  East  and  the  West 
contained  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  but  the  other  books  dis- 
cussed in  this  volume  were  omitted  in  either  the  one  or  the 
other.  That  meant  that  these  books  were  somewhat  slower 
than  the  other  New  Testament  books  in  gaining  canonical 
recognition  in  the  general  church.  If  the  suggestion  made 
by  Carlstadt  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  had  been 
adopted  by  the  Protestant  church  and  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  had  been  divided  into  three  classes  according  to 
their  degree  of  canonical  authority.  First  Peter  would  have 
fallen  into  the  second  class  and  Hebrews,  James,  "Second 
Peter,"  and  Jude  would  have  been  assigned  to  the  third  class 
as  among  the  books  to  be  admitted  last  into  the  canon.  It 
is  into  this  more  doubtful  field  that  we  enter  in  this  book. 

We  have  attempted  in  this  series  to  be  thorough-going  in 
our  research  and  independent  in  our  conclusions.  We  have 
tried  to  face  all  the  facts  and  to  be  influenced  only  by  these. 
We  have  tried  to  submit  the  facts  in  each  case,  believing  that 
it  was  the  right  of  the  church,  both  preachers  and  laymen, 
to  know  them.  We  have  felt  that  it  was  one  duty  of  the 
theologian  to  transmit  to  the  rank  and  file  of  the  church 
membership  the  results  of  the  best  and  most  recent  theologi- 
cal discussion  and  to  put  these  into  the  most  readable  and 
interesting  form  which  seemed  to  be  possible.  The  reception 
granted  to  the  preceding  volumes  of  this  series  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  we  have  succeeded  in  our  endeavor  in  this 
direction  in  some  measure  at  least. 

These  four  volumes  are  simply  volumes  in  Introduction. 
Their  only  office  has  been  to  introduce  their  readers  to  the 


FOREWORD  13 

New  Testament  books.  They  have  led  up  to  the  threshold 
of  these  treasure  houses  and  have  given  merely  a  glimpse 
of  the  invaluable  contents  of  each.  They  will  have  failed  in 
their  most  serious  intent  if  those  who  read  them  are  not  led 
to  enter  and  explore  for  themselves  these  palaces  of  revealed 
truth  and  to  become  acquainted  with  and  possessed  of  the 
incalculable  riches  they  offer  to  all  who  diligently  search  for 
them. 

There  is  a  degree  of  satisfaction  in  having  completed  a 
work  upon  which  one  has  been  engaged  for  years.  We 
finish  this  series  with  the  sincere  prayer  that  its  four  volumes 
may  help  to  the  study  and  love  of  the  New  Testament  books 
and  thus  to  the  progress  and  the  fulfillment  of  the  faith  and 
life  they  present. 


PART  I 
THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

I.  An  Estimate  of  the  Epistle 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  one  of  the  most  important 
and  one  of  the  most  interesting  books  ever  written.  It  is 
full  of  strange  and  startling  statements  and  it  has  had  a 
strange  and  extraordinary  history.  It  is  unique  in  concep- 
tion, unparalleled  in  content,  and  preeminent  in  composition. 
It  stands  in  our  New  Testament  in  a  class  by  itself,  like  a 
noble  but  solitary  figure  in  the  midst  of  the  throng. 

The  Pauline  Epistles  have  a  stamp  of  their  own.  The 
CathoHc  Epistles  form  a  group  by  themselves.  The  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  does  not  belong  to  either  of  these  companies. 
It  is  not  like  the  histories,  and  it  is  not  like  the  Apocalypse. 
As  Franz  Delitzsch  and  Philip  Schaff  have  pointed  out,^ 
it  resembles  the  Melchizedek  of  which  its  central  portion 
treats.  It  combines  priestly  unction  and  royal  dignity.  It 
is  without  father,  without  mother,  and  without  pedigree. 
It  is  mysterious  in  its  origin  and  in  its  destination.  We  do 
not  know  whence  it  came  nor  whither  it  went  in  the  be- 
ginning. We  do  not  know  when  or  where  it  was  written. 
For  us  it  has  no  definite  beginning  of  days,  and  we  are  sure 
that  it  will  have  no  end  of  life.  The  obscurity  which  sur- 
rounds the  circumstances  of  its  birth  only  makes  the  inherent 
worth  of  its  content  seem  the  more  illustrious.  Like  any 
other  work  of  genius,  it  shines  by  its  own  and  not  by  any 
reflected  light.  The  more  it  is  studied  the  more  it  is  appre- 
ciated, and  it  makes  its  appeal  to  many  classes. 

We  suggest  the  following  noteworthy  facts  in  connection 
with  this  epistle. 

I  Compare  Delitzsch,  Commentary,  vol.  i,  p.  4,  and  Schaff,  Apostolic 
Christianity,  p.  810. 

17 


l8  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

I.  It  is  the  only  anonymous  epistle  in  the  New  Testament. 
There  are  those  who  think  that  "Second  Peter"  is  a 
pseudonymous  epistle,  and  others  have  tried  to  prove  that 
some  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  belonged  to  this  class.  They 
think  that  the  names  of  the  great  apostles  were  attached  to 
these  epistles  to  give  them  authority.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  seems  to  feel  the  need  of  no  such  authentication. 
The  name  of  its  author  is  neither  prefixed  nor  affixed.  It 
asks  no  hearing  because  of  reverence  for  him. 

It  begins  with  the  whole  gist  of  the  matter  it  has  to  present 
in  its  first  sentence,  and  that  first  sentence  is  sufficient  to 
guarantee  the  interest  and  the  respect  of  the  reader  and  the 
importance  of  the  entire  revelation  it  purposes  to  give.  He 
who  began  to  read  would  not  be  likely  to  lay  the  letter  aside 
until  he  had  seen  whether  the  promise  of  the  beginning  was 
fulfilled  in  the  further  discussion  and  made  good  at  the  close. 
A  man  who  could  write  that  first  sentence  did  not  need  any 
commendation  from  any  extraneous  sources. 

He  must  have  been  well  known  to  those  who  first  received 
the  epistle.  It  was  delivered  to  them  by  some  accredited 
messenger  and  they  knew  from  whom  it  had  come.  He  evi- 
dently was  an  intimate  friend.  They  must  have  known  his 
literary  powers,  and  his  style  was  familiar  to  them.  In  all 
probability  that  first  sentence  was  in  itself  a  sufficient  authen- 
tication. There  was  somebody  in  the  early  church  who 
could  write  an  epistle  equal  to  any  epistle  of  Paul.  The  fact 
that  everybody  knew  him  then  seemed  to  render  it  unneces- 
sary to  chronicle  his  name.  So  to-day  he  is  to  us  The  Great 
Unknown. 

This  is  one  of  the  strangest  facts  in  all  literature,  that  the 
writer  of  so  important  a  document  as  this  should  have  left 
no  trace  of  his  name  upon  church  history.  It  seems  incred- 
ible that  the  composer  of  such  a  masterpiece  should  not  have 
been  commemorated  in  some  way  in  the  annals  of  the  Chris- 
tian community.    The  names  of  Paul  and  Peter  and  James 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  19 

and  John  and  Jude  were  attached  to  their  epistles  from  the 
very  beginning  in  the  tradition  of  the  church.  Here  is  an 
epistle  which  is  of  far  greater  importance  than  many  of  the 
epistles  ascribed  to  these  men,  and  yet  as  far  back  as  we  can 
trace  the  history  of  it  in  the  hterature  of  the  Fathers  there 
seems  to  have  been  uncertainty  as  to  its  authorship.  We  find 
guesses  concerning  its  source,  but  nobody  seems  to  know 
anything  of  a  surety  on  the  subject. 

The  epistle  is  worthy  to  rank  with  any  of  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  It  is  one  of  the  greatest  among  them. 
The  church  has  preserved  a  tradition  concerning  the  author- 
ship of  all  the  rest  of  them.  This  one  book  is  unique  in  that 
it  alone  is  anonymous.  The  Authorized  Version  and  the 
English  Revised  Version  print  as  the  title  to  the  book,  "The 
Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the  Hebrews,"  but  modem 
scholarship  has  disputed  and  disproved  this  ascription  of 
authorship,  and  the  American  Revised  Version  is  content 
with  the  title,  "The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews" ;  leaving  it,  as  it 
should  be,  anonymous.  The  very  cloud  of  mystery  which 
surrounded  it  on  even  its  advent  into  the  canonical  litera- 
ture and  through  all  its  subsequent  history  makes  it  a  fas- 
cinating subject  of  study.  Since  no  one  can  speak  for  it, 
we  look  with  all  the  more  interest  to  see  what  it  has  to  say 
for  itself. 

2.  As  a  piece  of  Hterature  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  takes 
first  rank  in  the  New  Testament.  It  has  a  classic  elegance 
of  structure  which  is  not  approached  in  any  other  New  Tes- 
tament book.  There  are  passages  in  the  writings  of  Luke 
in  which  he  seems  to  swing  clear  of  his  Hebraistic  sources 
and  rival  the  classic  historians  of  Greece  in  his  style,  but 
these  passages  are  only  occasional  with  him.  In  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  the  composition  is  elegant  and  classical 
throughout.  It  has  most  to  do  with  the  Hebrew  history  and 
religious  ritual.  It  is  addressed  to  the  Hebrews  alone  in  the 
early  church.    Yet  it  is  freer  from  Hebraisms  than  any  other 


20  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

New  Testament  book,  and  it  is  characterized  by  a  purer 
Greek  style. 

Blass  says,  "The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the  only  piece 
of  writing  in  the  New  Testament  which  in  structure  of  sen- 
tences and  style  shows  the  care  and  dexterity  of  an  artistic 
writer."^  Zahn  agrees,  "The  author  of  Hebrews  is  .  .  . 
a  teacher  rhetorically  trained,  who,  notwithstanding  all  the 
earnestness  of  his  concern  for  the  salvation  of  his  readers, 
nevertheless  makes  it  a  point  to  put  his  thoughts  into  artistic 
and  rhythmical  language."^  Deissmann  is  disposed  to  call  it 
a  literary  oration,  with  some  epistolary  greetings  at  the 
close.  Hebrews  begins  like  a  treatise,  proceeds  like  an  ora- 
tion, and  ends  like  a  letter.  Yet  it  is  a  masterpiece  of  Hterary 
composition. 

No  one  has  spoken  more  appreciatively  of  the  epistle  than 
that  greatest  scholar  of  early  Methodism,  Adam  Clarke,  He 
says :  "Never  were  premises  more  clearly  stated ;  never  was 
an  argument  handled  in  a  more  masterly  manner,  and  never 
was  a  conclusion  more  legitimately  and  satisfactorily 
brought  forth.  The  matter  is  everywhere  the  most  interest- 
ing, the  manner  is  throughout  the  most  engaging,  and  the 
language  is  most 'beautifully  adapted  to  the  whole,  every- 
where appropriate,  always  nervous  and  energetic,  dignified 
as  is  the  subject,  pure  and  elegant  as  that  of  the  most  ac- 
complished Grecian  orators,  and  harmonious  and  diversified 
as  the  music  of  the  spheres.  So  many  are  the  beauties,  so 
great  the  excellency,  so  instructive  the  matter,  so  pleasing 
the  manner,  and  so  exceedingly  interesting  the  whole,  that 
the  work  may  be  read  a  hundred  times  over  without  per- 
ceiving anything  of  sameness,  and  with  new  and  increased 
information  at  each  reading.  This  latter  is  an  excellency 
which  belongs  to  the  whole  revelation  of  God;  but  to  no 
part  of  it  in  such  a  peculiar  and  superemment  manner  as  to 

•  Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek,  p.  296. 

*  Zahn,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  ii,  p.  353. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  2i 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews."*  It  is  strange  enough  that  any 
epistle  in  the  New  Testament  should  be  anonymous,  but  that 
this  literary  masterpiece  among  the  epistles  should  be  anony- 
mous seems  doubly  strange, 

3.  This  epistle  is  the  most  important  single  epistle  in  the 
New  Testament  because  it  stands  for  a  distinct  type  of 
Christian  thought.  The  biblical  theologies  give  a  separate 
section  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  They  usually  distin- 
guish the  theology  of  the  synoptic  Gospels,  the  theology  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  the  theology  of  the  Johannine 
books.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  gives  a  fourth  distinct 
department  of  New  Testament  theology,  ranking  with  the 
other  three  in  the  importance  of  its  presentation  of  the 
thought  of  the  apostolic  church.  Reuss  calls  it  "the  first 
systematic  treatise  of  Christian  theology."^  It  has  affinities 
with  all  the  other  New  Testament  books,  but  at  the  same 
time  it  has  characteristics  which  mark  it  as  unique.  As  in 
its  authorship  and  its  literary  merit,  so  in  its  method  of  the 
presentation  of  Christian  truth,  it  stands  alone. 

Friedlander  says  it  is  "the  strangest  book  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  a  Janus  head  with  two  faces,  one  Pauline 
and  the  other  Jewish."  Therefore  it  would  seem  to  be 
placed  very  properly  in  our  New  Testament  canon  between 
the  Pauline  Epistles  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Jewish  epistles 
of  James  and  Peter  and  Jude  on  the  other.  Its  theological 
position  is  thus  fairly  defined.  It  stands  in  closer  affinity 
with  the  Hellenistic  and  Alexandrian  type  of  theology  and 
thought  than  any  other  New  Testament  book.  As  its  purer 
Greek  and  its  better  literary  construction  might  indicate,  its 
author  seems  to  have  come  into  more  intimate  relations  with 
the  outside  world  and  to  be  moife  sympathetic  with  the 
Apocryphal  and  Alexandrian  literature  and  philosophy  and 


*  Preface  to  Commentary,  p.  i. 

'  History  of  Christian  Theology,  ii,  24.1. 


22  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

method  of  scriptural  exegesis  than  any  of  the  more  Jewish 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  books. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  full  of  strange  paradoxes 
at  every  point,  and  none  of  them  is  stranger  than  this,  that 
the  one  book  expressly  addressed  to  the  Hebrews  should  be 
the  one  book  in  the  New  Testament  which  is  most  fully 
emancipated  from  Hebrew  narrowness  and  most  fully  im- 
pregnated with  the  spirit  of  the  Greek  classics  and  philoso- 
phy. As  it  mediates  between  Pauline  and  Jewish  theology, 
so  it  mediates  between  Hebrew  revelation  and  Greek  phil- 
osophy. In  our  New  Testament  it  represents  the  Philonian 
endeavor  to  adapt  the  ancient  faith  to  contemporary  condi- 
tions and  current  schools  of  thought.  Its  whole  argument 
depends  upon  the  assumption  of  the  typical  and  symbolical 
and  spiritual  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  ritual  of  wor- 
ship. To  the  author  of  this  epistle  all  the  temporal  and  ma- 
terial appointments  of  the  Jewish  temple  and  priesthood 
were  but  allegories  of  eternal  and  spiritual  realities.  The 
allegorical  and  spiritual  interpretation  of  Scripture  always 
will  find  one  of  its  justifications  in  the  canonical  authority 
of  this  book.  Tholuck  says  of  the  epistle :  "It  is  a  complete 
illustration  of  the  words  of  Augustine,  Novum  Testamen- 
tum  in  Vetere  latet,  Vetus  in  Novo  patet." 

4.  The  epistle  is  most  interesting  in  itself.  Origen  said, 
"The  thoughts  of  the  epistle  are  wonderful,  and  not  second 
to  the  acknowledged  writings  of  Paul."®  Even  Luther  de- 
clared, "Das  ist  eine  starke,  machtige,  und  hohe  epistel,"  and 
again,  "It  certainly  is  a  wondrously  fine  epistle,  which  speaks 
in  a  masterly  and  solid  way  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  and 
finely  and  fully  expounds  the  Old  Testament."^  Edwards, 
one  of  its  modern  commentators,  calls  it  "one  of  the  great- 
est and  most  difficult  books  of  the  New  Testament."^    Philip 

•  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  vi,  25,  12. 

'  Luther's  Werke,  Walch  ed.,  xiv,  147. 

•  Expositor's  Bible,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  v. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  23 

Schaff  says:  "Obscure  in  its  origin,  it  is  clear  and  deep  in 
its  knowledge  of  Christ.  Hailing  from  the  second  genera- 
tion of  Christians,  it  is  full  of  pentecostal  inspiration. 
Traceable  to  no  apostle,  it  teaches,  exhorts,  and  warns  with 
apostolic  authority  and  power."^ 

Delitzsch  declares,  "The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  not 
its  like  among  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  resem- 
bling in  this  uniqueness  of  position,  as  well  as  in  tone  and 
spirit,  the  great  prophetic  exhortation  of  Isa.  40-66,  which 
in  like  manner  stands  alone  among  the  prophetic  writings 
of  the  Old  Testament.  The  tone  of  thought  in  both  these 
portions  of  Scripture  has  the  same  transcendental  character ; 
each  has  a  threefold  division  of  its  contents;  the  same  ma- 
jestic march  and  flight  of  language  characterizes  each,  the 
same  Easter-morning  breath  from  another  world,  and  the 
same  tantalizing  veil  suspended  before  the  eyes  of  the  vexed 
inquirer,  now  half  revealing,  now  concealing  the  origin  and 
authorship  of  either  composition.  No  other  book  of  the 
New  Testament  is  distinguished  by  such  brilliant  eloquence 
and  euphonious  rhythm  as  our  epistle;  and  this  rhetorical 
form  is  not  superinduced  on  the  subject,  but  is  its  true  ex- 
pression, as  setting  forth  the  special  glories  of  the  new  cov- 
enant and  of  a  new  and  Christ-transfigured  world.  Old  and 
New  Testaments  are  set  the  one  over  against  the  other,  the 
moonlight  of  the  Old  Testament  paling  once  and  again  be- 
fore the  sunrise  of  the  New,  and  the  heavenly  prospect  thus 
illumined. "!'' 

If  the  estimates  of  these  scholars  are  warranted  by  the 
contents  of  the  epistle  they  are  well  worth  studying  for 
themselves  alone;  but  these  contents  become  doubly  inter- 
esting to  us  when  we  find  that  they  are  remarkably  ap- 
plicable in  all  their  teaching  to  the  present  day.  Westcott 
says:  "Every  student  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  must 

»  Schaflf,  op.  ciL,  p.  810. 
w  Delitzsch,  op.  cit.,  p.  3. 


24  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

feel  that  it  deals  in  a  peculiar  degree  with  the  thoughts  and 
the  trials  of  our  own  time.  .  .  .  The  difficulties  which 
come  to  us  through  physical  facts  and  theories,  through 
criticism,  through  wider  views  of  human  history,  correspond 
with  those  which  came  to  Jewish  Christians  at  the  close  of 
the  apostolic  age,  and  they  will  find  their  solution  also  in 
fuller  views  of  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ."ii  Vaughan 
writes :  "Epistle,  treatise,  and  homily  in  one,  no  generation 
needed  it  more  than  our  own,  and  the  growing  attention 
paid  to  it  shows  that  the  need  is  felt."^*  The  author  of  this 
epistle  was  a  scholar  and  a  philosopher,  and  his  exposition  of 
Christianity  is  the  earliest  we  have  from  such  a  source.  He 
combined  within  himself  some  of  the  best  features  of  the 
later  Antiochian  and  Alexandrian  schools,  and  his  methods 
and  interpretations  are  valid  to-day. 

5.  There  is  another  particular  in  which  this  epistle  differs 
from  every  other  New  Testament  book.  The  Eastern  and 
the  Western  churches  in  the  beginning  were  arrayed  against 
each  other  on  the  question  of  its  authorship.  The  Eastern 
church  thought  that  Paul  was  its  author.  The  Western 
church  seemed  to  be  sure  that  he  was  not. 

11.  The  Early  History  of  the  Epistle  in  the  East 

I.  As  far  as  we  can  learn  the  Eastern  church  from  the 
very  beginning  and  without  any  exception  regarded  the 
epistle  as  canonical.  The  first  synod  to  make  official  declara- 
tion that  it  was  Pauline  was  that  of  Antioch,  a.  d.  204. 
2.  It  was  the  tradition  at  Alexandria  that  Paul  wrote  the 
epistle.  This  tradition  can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  to 
Pantaenus,  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  It  is 
supposed  that  he  is  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  in  a 
passage  found  only  in  Eusebius.  The  tradition  comes  to 
us,  therefore,  only  at  third  hand,  and  it  runs  as  follows: 

"  Westcott,  Commentary  on  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  v. 
"  Vaughan,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  xi. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  25 

"The  blessed  presbyter  said,  since  the  Lord  being  the  apostle 
of  the  Almighty  was  sent  to  the  Hebrews,  Paul  as  sent 
to  the  Gentiles,  on  account  of  his  modesty  did  not  subscribe 
himself  an  apostle  of  the  Hebrews,  through  respect  for  the 
Lord,  and  because  being  a  herald  and  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles he  wrote  to  the  Hebrews  out  of  his  superabundance."^^ 

Pantaenus,  or  whoever  is  being  quoted  in  this  passage, 
gives  three  reasons  for  Paul's  omission  of  his  own  name  in 
the  epistle;  his  modesty,  his  respect  for  the  Lord,  and  the 
superabundance  of  his  writing.  These  three  reasons  seem 
to  be  somewhat  inconsistent  with  each  other,  and  none  of 
them  seems  sufficient  or  satisfactory.  Paul  never  was 
modest  about  his  apostleship.  He  proclaimed  it  boldly 
everywhere,  to  the  Jews  as  well  as  to  the  Gentiles.  His 
commission  was  to  all  men,  and  he  preached  to  the  Jews 
first  and  by  preference  and  turned  to  the  Gentiles  only  when 
rejected  by  them.  If  Paul  had  written  this  epistle,  it  never 
would  have  occurred  to  him  that  he  ought  to  be  modest 
about  his  apostolic  ministry  to  the  Hebrews.  He  might  be 
modest  about  some  things,  but  he  never  was  modest  about 
that. 

Then,  surely,  it  would  have  been  a  strange  exhibition  of 
modesty  and  of  reverence  for  the  Lord  if  Paul  had  sup- 
pressed his  name  and  at  the  same  time  had  assumed  apostolic 
authority  in  the  writing  of  the  epistle.  If  respect  for  the 
Lord  would  suggest  the  omission  of  his  name,  surely  the 
same  respect  would  have  precluded  the  writing  of  the 
epistle  itself.  Then,  too,  the  suggestion  of  superabundance 
in  Paul's  writing  to  Hebrews  when  he  was  the  apostle 
to  the  Gentiles  seems  scarcely  consistent  with  either  modesty 
or  respect  for  his  Lord;  for  again,  if  he  felt  that  he  had  no 
business  to  write  to  them  he  ought  to  have  suppressed  the 
whole  epistle  as  well  as  his  name. 


**  Church  History,  VI,  14:4,  Niceneand  Post- Nicene  Fathers,  I,  p.  261. 


26  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

This  suggestion  of  a  conscious  and  motived  suppres- 
sion of  the  author's  name  seems  an  erroneous  one.  The 
writer  of  this  epistle  had  no  thought  of  conceahng  his  iden- 
tity from  those  who  received  it.  He  tells  them  that  Timothy 
has  been  released  from  prison  and  he  hopes  soon  to  visit 
them  in  Timothy's  company.^*  Calvin  asks  with  all  reason- 
ableness why  he  should  say  such  things  as  these,  if  he  did 
not  want  his  readers  to  know  who  he  was.  Evidently,  it 
had  not  occurred  to  him  that  any  question  would  be  raised 
as  to  his  identity.  No  apostolic  church  would  have  received 
this  epistle  or  given  any  heed  to  its  appeal,  if  it  had  not 
known  where  it  came  from  and  whose  authority  was  be- 
hind it.  We  believe  that  if  Paul  had  written  this  epistle 
he  would  have  put  his  name  and  his  apostolic  authority 
in  its  forefront,  even  as  he  has  in  all  his  other  epistles,  and 
we  have  no  slightest  disposition  to  suspect  that,  as 
Delitzsch  and  Whedon  suggest,  Paul  would  occultly  indi- 
cate his  authorship  of  the  epistle  by  beginning  it  with  three 
Greek  words  whose  first  syllable  resembled  his  name  in 
sound  !^5  This  modern  absurdity  of  interpretation  is 
worse  than  anything  which  "the  blessed  presbyter"  sug- 
gested. 

3.  Eusebius  again  is  our  authority  for  the  opinion  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria  himself  in  this  matter.  He  informs 
us  that  Clement  said  that  "the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  the 
work  of  Paul,  and  that  it  was  written  to  the  Hebrews  in  the 
Hebrew  language;  but  that  Luke  translated  it  carefully 
and  published  it  for  the  Greeks.  .  .  .  But  he  says  that 
the  words,  'Paul,  the  Apostle,'  were  probably  not  prefixed, 
because  in  sending  it  to  the  Hebrews,  who  were  prejudiced 
and  suspicious  of  him,  he  wisely  did  not  wish  to  repel  them  at 
the  very  beginning  by  giving  his  name."^®  Now,  the  Epistle  to 

"  Heb.  13.  23. 

^^Ilo\v/iepCos  Kal  ro\vTp6ir<i>s  TttXat,  Heb.  I.  I. 

"  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,VI,  14:3,  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  I,  p.  261. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  27 

the  Hebrews  bears  every  mark  of  having  been  written  orig- 
inally in  Greek.  Its  paronomasia  are  possible  only  in  Greek ; 
and  many  of  its  compound  words  are  so  purely  Greek  that 
they  have  no  terms  to  correspond  with  them  in  the  Aramaic 
or  the  Hebrew.  It  surely  would  be  strange  if  the  best  Greek 
in  the  New  Testament  should  be  found  in  a  translation 
from  a  Hebrew  original;  and  no  trace  of  such  an  original 
ever  has  been  found.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  no 
book  in  the  New  Testament  is  as  little  Hkely  to  be  a  transla- 
tion from  the  Hebrew  as  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

4.  Origen  frequently  quotes  from  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews as  of  Pauline  authorship,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  Afri- 
canus  he  says  that  some  deny  Paul's  authorship,  and  he  adds 
that  he  will  elsewhere  give  a  confutation  of  their  views ;  but 
if  he  ever  essayed  to  do  so,  the  writing  upon  this  subject 
has  been  lost.  In  his  later  life  he  seems  to  have  been  more 
doubtful  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  epistle,  and 
Eusebius  quotes  from  his  Homilies  upon  it  the  following 
statements.  "That  the  verbal  style  of  the  epistle  entitled 
To  The  Hebrews,'  is  not  rude  like  the  language  of  the  apos- 
tle, who  acknowledged  himself  rude  in  speech,  that  is,  in 
expression;  but  that  its  diction  is  purer  Greek,  anyone  who 
has  the  power  to  discern  differences  of  phraseology  will  ac- 
knowledge. .  .  .  If  I  gave  my  opinion,  I  should  say 
that  the  thoughts  are  those  of  the  apostle,  but  the  diction 
and  phraseology  are  those  of  some  one  who  remembered 
the  apostolic  teachings,  and  wrote  down  at  his  leisure  what 
had  been  said  by  his  teacher.  Therefore  if  any  church  holds 
that  this  epistle  is  by  Paul,  let  it  be  commended  for  this. 
For  not  without  reason  have  the  ancients  handed  it  down 
as  Paul's.    But  who  wrote  the  epistle,  in  truth,  God  knows.''^''^ 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  Origen's  conclusion  here,  "Who 
wrote  the  epistle,  in  truth,  God  knows,"  has  to  do  primarily 

"  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  VI,  25:11-14,  Nicenexand  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  I, 

p.  273.      tI%  Si  0  ypd\l/as  t^v  iiriffro\-f)v,  rh  fxiv  oKriffh  Oebi  otSev. 


28  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

with  the  amanuensis  whom  he  conceives  to  be  some  disciple 
of  Paul  and  dependent  upon  Paul  for  his  doctrine.  The 
modern  judgment  is  that  this  uncertainty  of  authorship  ex- 
tends beyond  the  amanuensis  to  the  actual  author,  and 
Zahn  in  his  comment  upon  this  passage  from  Origen  says 
that  Origen  "defends  a  single  church  holding  this  view 
[of  the  Pauline  authorship]  against  the  judgment  of  the 
other  churches.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  this  opinion  was 
held  at  that  time  anywhere  outside  of  Egypt,  nor  subse- 
quently in  any  place  not  under  the  influence  of  Alexandrian 
scholars. "1^ 

5.  Dionysius  and  Athanasius  ascribe  the  epistle  to  Paul. 

6.  The  epistle  is  in  the  Peshito,  and  it  has  the  same  posi- 
tion as  in  our  Bible.  It  follows  the  epistles  of  Paul,  but 
does  not  have  his  name  attached.  However,  the  Syrian 
Church  in  general  believed  that  Paul  wrote  it. 

III.  The  Early  History  of  the  Epistle  in  the  West 

The  earliest  traces  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  are  to 
be  found  at  Rome.  It  was  known  in  that  city  before  the  close 
of  the  first  century. 

I.  Clement  of  Rome  values  the  epistle  quite  highly.  He 
quotes  from  it  freely  and  its  thought  seems  to  have  in- 
fluenced him  largely.  Overbeck  says,  "The  fact  is  unmis- 
takable that  the  letter  of  Clement  makes  use  of  Hebrews 
without  acknowledgment,  at  times  copying  it  outright."!^ 
Holtzmann  counts  forty-seven  correspondences  between  the 
Epistle  of  Clement  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.^" 
These  consist  of  literal  quotations  and  borrowed  phrases 
and  similar  sentiments.  It  surely  is  noteworthy  that  Clement 
never  claims  the  authority  of  Paul  for  any  of  these.  This 
silence  on  his  part  almost  becomes  positive  evidence  against 

"  Zahn,  op.  cit.,  vol.  ii,  p.  300. 

"  Overbeck,  Zur  Geschichte  des  Kanons,  S.  3. 

^  Holtzmann,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  S.  237. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  29 

the  Pauline  authorship,  in  view  of  the  later  opinion  in  Rome 
on  that  point. 

2.  The  Roman  presbyter  Caius  made  a  canonical  list  and 
included  in  it  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul;  but  he  did  not 
reckon  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  among  them. 

3.  The  Muratorian  Fragment  does  the  same  thing. 

4.  In  the  extant  writings  of  Irenaeus  and  Hippolytus  there 
is  no  clear  use  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Photius,  in 
the  ninth  century,  quoted  from  a  writing  of  Stephen  Gobar 
of  the  sixth  century,  in  which  he  stated  that  both  Irenaeus, 
A.  D.  180,  and  Hippolytus,  A.  D.  215,  declared  that  the 
epistle  was  not  Paul's. 

5.  Tertullian  is  clear  enough  in  his  testimony.  He  was  a 
man  of  most  decided  opinions  in  all  matters,  and  he  tells  us 
that  the  epistle  was  written  by  Barnabas,  a  comrade  of  the 
apostles  and  a  man  sufficiently  accredited  by  God.^i 

6.  Cyprian  names  seven  churches  to  which  Paul,  like  the 
Apocalyptist,  wrote.22  Down  to  his  time,  A.  D.  300,  the 
Western  church  seems  to  have  been  sure  that  Paul  did  not 
write  the  epistle,  and  they  were  disposed  to  regard  it  as  of 
somewhat  less  than  canonical  authority. 

7.  Jerome,  A.  D.  400,  lived  in  the  East  but  belonged  to  the 
West.  In  quoting  the  epistle  he  says,  "Paul,  or  whoever 
wrote  it,  says,"  and  again,  "No  matter  who  wrote  it,  since 
it  is  the  work  of  an  orthodox  member  of  the  church."23 

8.  Augustine  accepted  the  epistle  as  canonical;  but  both 
he  and  Jerome  seem  to  prefer  to  describe  it  in  general 
terms,  as  the  epistle  which  is  written  to  the  Hebrews,  and  to 
avoid  the  ascription  of  it  to  Paul. 

9.  The  Synod  of  Hippo,  A.  D.  393,  put  the  epistle  into  the 
canon,  saying  that  there  were  "thirteen  epistles  of  the  apostle 
Paul,  and  one  by  the  same  to  the  Hebrews."     The  fourth 

"  Tertullian,  De  Pudic,  20.    Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  IV,  p.  97- 

"Testim.  adv.  Jud.,  i,  20,    De  Exhort.  Mart.,  11. 

**  Comm.  in  Amos,  viii,  7,  8,  and  Comm.  in  Jerem.,  xxxi,  3i£. 


30  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

synod  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  397,  and  the  fifth  synod  of  Car- 
thage, A.  D.  419,  admitted  Hebrews  to  the  canon  and  the  lat- 
ter reckoned  "fourteen  epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul." 
The  epistle  has  been  of  unquestioned  canonicity  in  the  church 
since  that  date.  The  epistle  was  placed  after  the  Pauline 
epistles,  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  them  in  both  the  Eastern 
and  Western  Bibles. 

No  Western  writer  in  the  first  three  centuries  ascribes 
the  epistle  to  Paul.  The  first  one  to  do  so  was  Hilary,  late 
in  the  fourth  century.  The  negative  and  positive  testimony 
against  the  Pauline  authorship  in  the  West  ought  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  weighty  one,  since  the  epistle  was  first  known 
here.  Even  into  the  fifth  century  Jerome  and  Augustine 
doubted  the  Pauline  authorship;  but  the  influence  of  the 
Eastern  church  prevailed  from  this  time  and  the  epistle  was 
not  only  received  as  canonical  but  was  generally  believed  to 
be  Pauline  until  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 

IV.  Opinions  of  Modern  Scholars 

1.  Erasmus  said,  "Though  most  clearly  akin  to  the  soul 
and  spirit  of  Paul,  we  may  gather  from  very  many  argu- 
ments that  it  was  written  by  some  other  than  Paul."^* 

2.  Luther  put  it  into  the  appendix  to  his  Bible,  separating 
it  from  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  placing  it  after  the  epistles 
of  Peter  and  John.  He  said,  "We  do  not  place  it  absolutely 
on  the  same  footing  with  the  apostolic  epistles."^^ 

3.  Melanchthon  always  treated  the  epistle  as  anonymous. 

4.  Zwingli  considered  it  both  canonical  and  Pauline. 

5.  Calvin  said,  "Without  doubt  it  is  an  apostoHc  epistle. 
.  .  .  I  cannot  myself  be  brought  to  believe  that  Paul  is 
the  author."26    The  Geneva  Bible  of  1560  omitted  the  name 


«  Westcott,  On  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  47i- 
^  Luther's  Werke,  Walch  ed.,  xiv,  147. 
^  Com.  on  Hebrews,  p.  xxvii. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  31 

of  Paul  from  the  title,  and  said  in  the  preface,  "We  know 
not  with  what  pen  the  Spirit  of  God  wrote  it." 

6.  Beza  said,  "It  was  truly  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit; 
and  it  is  written  in  so  excellent  and  so  exact  a  method  that 
unless  we  can  suppose  that  ApoUos  wrote  it,  whose  learn- 
ing and  eloquence  combined  with  the  greatest  piety  are  so 
highly  praised  in  the  Acts,  scarcely  anyone  except  Paul  could 
have  been  the  writer."^^ 

7.  Grotius  declared,  "It  is  most  obvious  that  the  epistle 
was  not  written  by  Paul  himself  from  the  difference  in 
style."28 

8.  Weiss  says,  "Since  Bleek,  1828,  the  view  of  the 
Pauline  composition  may  from  a  scientific  standpoint  be 
regarded  as  set  aside. "^^ 

9.  Farrar  concludes,  "It  is  the  now  all  but  universal  opin- 
ion of  critics  that  the  epistle  was  not  written  by  Paul  him- 
self and  not  by  any  apostle. "^^ 

10.  Bacon  says,  "Since  Simon's  day  an  ever-increasing 
number  of  scholars  agree  with  the  verdict  of  Origen  as  to 
Hebrews,  God  only  knows  who  wrote  it;  moderns  adding, 
however,  that  Paul  certainly  did  not." 

11.  Bruce,  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,  dismisses  the 
subject  with  this  sentence,  "That  the  apostle  was  not  the 
author  of  it  is  now  so  generally  admitted  that  it  is  hardly 
worth  while  discussing  the  question.''^!  It  may  be  well,  how- 
ever, to  review  some  of  the  reasons  which  have  led  these 
scholars  to  conclude  against  the  Pauline  authorship. 

V.  Arguments  Against  Pauline  Authorship 

I.  The  Difference  of  Style.  Origen  felt  this  with  his  keen 
critical  sense,  and  although  all  the  tradition  of  the  church 

"  Preface  to  Com.  on  Hebrews.     ^  Praef .  ad  Hebr. 
*»  Weiss,  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p.  3. 
*  Farrar,  Messages  of  the  Books,  pp.  434-435. 
•^  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,  vol.  ii,  p.  335. 


32  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

there  at  Alexandria  was  against  him,  he  declared  that  the 
style  of  this  epistle  was  not  the  style  of  Paul,  and  that  any 
one  who  could  discern  differences  of  phraseology  would 
acknowledge  this.  It  has  been  a  decisive  argument  against 
the  Pauline  authorship  from  Origen's  day  to  the  present 
time.  However,  it  appeals  only  to  those  who  have  a  literary 
sense.  Some  people  almost  wholly  lack  this,  and  they  may 
be  able  to  believe  that  the  man  who  wrote  the  Second  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  also  could  have  written  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  though  the  one  is  like  a  raging  sea  and  the  other 
as  smooth  as  a  millpond. 

In  all  of  Paul's  epistles  the  style  is  of  secondary  considera- 
tion. His  sentences  are  full  of  solecisms  and  anacolutha. 
He  is  interested  in  the  thought  and  cares  little  for  the 
form.32  On  the  other  hand,  the  author  of  this  epistle  con- 
structs his  sentences  with  great  care  and  arranges  his  argu- 
ments in  the  most  approved  and  classical  order.  His  pe- 
riods are  well  rounded,  and  his  whole  composition  follows 
the  rules  of  the  schools  from  the  proemium  to  the  epilogue.^^ 
Farrar  says:  "He  is  never  ungrammatical,  never  irregular, 
never  personal ;  he  never  struggles  for  expression ;  he  never 
loses  himself  in  a  parenthesis ;  he  is  never  hurried  into  an 
unfinished  clause.  He  has  less  of  burning  passion  and  more 
of  conscious  literary  self-control.  ,  .  .  His  move- 
ment resembles  that  of  an  Oriental  sheik  with  his  robes  of 
honor  wrapped  about  him.  The  movement  of  Paul  is  like 
that  of  an  athlete  girded  for  a  race.  The  eloquence  of  this 
writer  even  when  it  is  at  its  most  majestic  volume  resembles 
the  flow  of  a  river.  The  rhetoric  of  Paul  is  like  the  rush  of 
a  mountain  torrent  amid  opposing  rocks."^^ 


^  Hayes,  Paul  and  His  Epistles,  pp.  73-123. 

*3  The  irpooLixiov  vpbs  ei/yoca;'  in  I.  I  to  4.  13,  the  irpSOeaii,  followed  by  the 
Sii^T'/cis  irpbs  TriOavdrriTa,  4.  14-6.  20;  dir6Sei^is  irpbs  ireiOu,  7.  I— lo.  18, 
and  the  ^ir/Xo7os,  10.  19-13.  21. 

*♦  Farrar,  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  pp.  191,  192,  193. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  33 

Rendall  contrasts  the  two  styles  in  the  following  terms: 
"Dialectical  subtlety,  impetuous  bursts  of  natural  eloquence, 
mighty  thoughts  struggling  for  expression  in  disjointed  sen- 
tences are  the  characteristic  features  of  Paul's  style.  Rhe- 
torical skill,  studied  antithesis,  even  flow  of  faultless  gram- 
mar, and  measured  march  of  rhythmical  periods,  combine 
to  stamp  upon  this  epistle  a  distinct  and  unique  character  of 
its  own."36 

However,  was  not  the  apostle  Paul  a  very  versatile  man, 
and  could  he  not  have  written  in  different  styles?  We 
think  not.  We  think  that  Paul  was  one  of  those  men  of 
whom  it  is  most  true  that  the  style  is  the  man.  His  epistles 
all  reveal  the  same  personality  and  all  have  the  same  char- 
acteristics. When  we  turn  from  them  to  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  we  are  conscious  of  passing  into  a  different  atmos- 
phere, and  we  feel  that  the  character  of  the  man  who  wrote 
it  was  radically  different  from  that  of  Paul.  Paul  revealed 
himself  in  all  that  he  wrote.  He  could  not  have  concealed 
himself  as  the  author  of  this  epistle  has. 

Could  Wendell  Phillips  have  written  one  of  Daniel  Web- 
ster's orations?  We  doubt  it.  He  might  have  made  the 
attempt,  but  his  nervous  and  straightaway  style  never  could 
have  compassed  the  Olympian  sonorousness  of  Webster's 
high-sounding  periods.  Neither  could  Webster  have  written 
one  of  Wendell  Phillips's  orations.  He  might  have  made 
the  attempt,  but  the  ponderous  movement  of  his  mind  never 
could  have  accommodated  itself  to  the  rapierlike  thrust  of 
Phillips'  style. 

Suppose  an  oration  of  either  one  of  these  men  had  been 
lost  and  it  should  be  discovered  to-day,  would  there  be  any 
difficulty  in  deciding  to  which  one  of  the  two  it  belonged? 
If  the  lost  oration  had  been  written  by  Phillips,  when  it  was 
compared  with  the  acknowledged  orations  of  Webster,  would 


'  Rendall,  Theology  of  the  Hebrew  Christians,  p.  27. 


34  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

not  anyone  be  able  to  discern  the  differences  of  style?  Could 
there  be  any  hesitation  in  deciding  that  it  could  not  have 
been  written  by  Webster?  If  we  had  no  other  orations  of 
Phillips  with  which  to  compare  it,  nevertheless  would  it  not 
be  certain  that  whoever  the  author  might  be,  and  even  if 
his  name  never  might  be  ascertained,  Webster  at  least  never 
could  have  composed  it  ?  Now,  the  difference  between  Paul 
and  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  something 
like  the  difference  between  Wendell  Phillips  and  Webster, 
It  is  a  difference  of  style  indicative  of  a  difference  of  char- 
acter. Anyone  who  can  discern  differences  of  style,  as 
Origen  said,  will  acknowledge  that  these  writings  could  not 
have  sprung  from  the  same  source.  The  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  a  different  man  from  the  writer 
of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

Bleek  and  Tholuck  have  noted  the  following  special  pe- 
culiarities of  style  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews:  (i)  The 
intransitive  use  of  Kadi^eiv,  "to  sit,"  1.3;  8.  i,  and  elsewhere. 
(2)  The  use  of  kdvnep,  "even  though,"  where  Paul  always 
uses  elye,  "if  at  least."  (3)  The  use  of  odev  in  the  sense 
of  "wherefore."  (4)  The  use  of  ei?  to  dirjvsKeg,  "to  per- 
petuity," and  el^  Td  TravreXeg,  7.3,  25;  lO.  I,  12,  14,  for 
Paul's  ndvTore,  "always,"  which  is  not  a  good  Greek  word. 
(5)  The  use  of   Trapd  and  vrrep  after  comparatives.^^ 

Kendall  in  his  study  of  the  differences  between  the  two 
authors  says:  "Diversity  of  style  is  more  easily  felt  by  the 
reader  than  expressed  by  the  critic,  without  at  least  a  te- 
dious analysis  of  language:  one  simple  and  tangible  test 
presents  itself,  however,  in  the  use  of  connecting  particles, 
inasmuch  as  these  determine  the  structure  of  sentences.  A 
minute  comparison  of  these  possesses,  therefore,  real  im- 
portance in  the  differentiation  of  language.  Now  in  the 
epistles  of  Paul,    dn^  occurs  fifty  times,    elre  sixty-three, 


*«  Quoted  in  Farrar,  op.  cit.,  p.  191. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  35 

TTore  in  afifiirmative  clauses  nineteen,  elra  in  enumerations 
six,  d  6e  Kai  four,  etTrep  five,  sKTog  el  fii]  three,  dye  four, 
firjnug  twelve,  firjKerc  ten,  fievovvye  three,  edv  eighty-eight 
times,  while  none  of  them  are  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  except  edv  and  that  only  once,  or  twice,  except 
in  quotations.  On  the  other  hand,  odev,  which  occurs  six 
times,  and  edvnep,  which  occurs  three  times  in  the  epistle, 
are  never  used  by  Paul."^^  Even  if  a  man  sat  down  con- 
sciously to  attempt  to  conceal  his  natural  style  and  to  imi- 
tate or  invent  a  new  one,  the  imitation  or  invention  would 
not  be  likely  to  descend  to  such  small  particulars  as  these 
connecting  particles.  They  stand  as  unobtrusive  but  con- 
vincing thumbprints  of  a  different  identity. 

2.  The  Difference  of  Language,  (i)  There  is  a  differ- 
ence in  vocabulary.  Professor  Gardiner  made  a  minute  in- 
vestigation of  the  language  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
He  began  that  investigation  with  the  belief  that  the  thought 
of  the  epistle  was  Pauline  and  the  phraseology  was  Lucan. 
He  had  supposed  that  the  Alexandrian  Fathers  were  right 
who  had  suggested  that  Paul  furnished  the  ideas  and  argu- 
ments and  Luke  put  them  into  good  Greek  form.  The  result 
of  his  prolonged  study  was  to  change  his  views  upon  these 
subjects. 

He  stated  his  conclusion  as  follows:  "There  are  many 
words  and  groups  of  words  expressing  ideas  very  promi- 
nently in  the  mind  of  the  author  of  this  epistle  which  must 
have  appeared  also  in  the  writings  of  Paul  had  the  thoughts 
of  this  epistle  been  derived  from  him,  but  which  are  not 
found  there.  Of  course  no  man  expresses  all  his  ideas  in 
any  one  epistle,  nor  the  same  ideas  in  every  one  he  writes; 
but  the  difference  here  is  more  radical.  As  one  mind  now  is 
affected  by  one,  and  another  by  another  of  the  various 
aspects  of  Christian  truth,  so  the  differences  here  go  to  show 


«  Rendall,  op.  cit.,  p.  27,  n.  i. 


36  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

that  the  mind  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  not  affected  in  the  same  way  as  Paul;  for  Hebrews  is 
scarcely  more  unlike  the  epistles  in  which  Paul  addressed 
believing  Jews  than  the  speeches  recorded  in  Acts  13,  22, 
and  28,  in  which  he  spoke  to  his  still  unbelieving  country- 
men."38 

Probably  no  more  thorough  research  ever  has  been  given 
to  this  aspect  of  the  epistle  than  that  of  Professor  Gardiner, 
and  his  conclusion,  therefore,  is  entitled  to  preeminent  re- 
spect. We  need  not  follow  him  into  all  the  details  of  his 
investigation.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  note  that  Thayer  in 
his  Lexicon  of  New  Testament  Greek  gives  a  list  of  one 
hundred  and  sixty-nine  words  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Greek  Scriptures,  and  that  Gar- 
diner shows  by  a  computation  of  the  number  of  peculiar 
words  to  the  line  or  lines  of  the  Greek  Testament  that  Paul, 
Luke,  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  have 
the  richest  vocabularies  among  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  that  Luke  has  a  richer  vocabulary  than  Paul,  but 
that  the  writer  of  Hebrews  has  a  vocabulary  surpassing  that 
of  Luke  more  than  he  surpasses  that  of  Paul.  In  the  com- 
parative number  of  new  and  peculiar  words  in  his  vocabu- 
lary the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  then,  is  not 
only  to  be  distinguished  from  Paul  but  is  preeminent  among 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 

(2)  There  is  a  corresponding  difference  in  the  choice  of 
words.  Rendall  says,  "The  two  authors  differ  materially 
in  language :  Paul  was  not  free  from  Hebraism,  and  derives 
force  from  the  simplicity  of  his  language :  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  expresses  himself  in  idiomatic  and 
polished  Greek  and  delights  in  the  pomp  of  stately  phrases 
and  full-sounding  derivatives."^^     Weiss  declares  that  no 

*  Joimaal  of  Society  of  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis,  June,  1887, 
p.  20. 
»  Rendall,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  37 

writing  in  the  New  Testament  is  so  free  from  Hebraisms 
as  this  epistle.^^  This  fact  alone  would  go  far  to  prove  that 
Paul  could  not  have  been  its  author.  Godet  says  very  per- 
tinently, "It  is  strange  indeed  that  Paul  should  have  written 
in  polished  Greek  to  the  Hebrews,  while  all  his  life  he  had 
been  writing  to  the  Hellenes  in  a  style  abounding  with 
rugged  and  barbarous  Hebraisms. "^1 

There  are  some  Hebraisms  in  this  epistle,  3.12;  9.5; 
12.  15,  but  they  are  comparatively  few,  and  Origen  was  right 
in  declaring  it  eAA7/v^/twrepa,  purer  Greek  than  that  of  Paul. 

(3)  Some  of  the  most  characteristic  expressions  in  the 
writings  of  Paul  are  wholly  lacking  here.  We  instance  a 
few  examples,  (a)  The  word  evayyeXtov,  "gospel,"  found 
in  all  the  Pauline  epistles  except  Titus,  does  not  occur  once  in 
this  epistle,  (b)  The  word  awTT^p,  "savior,"  is  found  twelve 
times  in  Paul,  but  does  not  occur  in  this  epistle,  (c)  The 
words  so  characteristic  of  the  Pauline  theology,  fivaTTJpcov, 
"mystery,"  and  olKodonelv,  "to  edify,"  and  diKatovv,  "to  jus- 
tify," are  not  found  in  this  epistle,  (d)  The  word  ^wf, 
"light,"  occurs  in  every  other  book  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  is  used  twelve  times  by  Paul,  but  it  is  not  found  in  He- 
brews or  the  short  epistle  of  Jude.  (e)  The  word  %a'pw,  "be 
joyful,  rejoice,"  occurs  in  every  other  book  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  is  used  twenty-seven  times  by  Paul,  but  it 
is  not  found  in  Hebrews  or  Jude.  (/)  On  the  contrary,  the 
word  lepevg  and  its  compounds  and  derivatives  occur  one 
hundred  and  fifty-nine  times  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
and  not  one  of  these  words  is  to  be  found  anywhere  in  the 
epistles  of  Paul,  (g)  The  phrase,  ev  XptCTrw,  "in  Christ," 
in  which  it  has  been  said  that  the  whole  of  the  Pauline  the- 
ology is  summed  up,  does  not  occur  in  this  epistle. 

(h)  Paul  says,  "Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  and  "Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord"  sixty-eight  times  in  his  epistles.     In  this 

*°  Weiss,  Introduction  vol.  ii,  p.  5. 

<i  Godet,  Studies  in  the  Epistles,  p.  332. 


38  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

epistle  we  have  "Jesus"  or  "Christ"  or  "Lord,"  but  the  three 
names  never  are  joined  together  as  in  Paul.  The  double 
name,  "Christ  Jesus,"  so  often  found  in  Paul,  never  occurs 
here.  The  double  name,  "Jesus  Christ,"  with  the  order  re- 
versed, occurs  three  times. ^^  The  name  "the  Lord"  for 
Christ  occurs  only  twice.^^  x^g  name  "Lord  Jesus"  oc- 
curs only  once.'*^  Paul  uses  these  names  over  six  hundred 
times.  These  again  are  dififerences  which  by  the  very 
casualness  of  their  character  bear  the  more  unmistakable 
evidence  to  a  difiference  of  authorship. 

3.  Difference  in  Method  of  Argument.  Paul  always 
keeps  to  his  argument  until  it  has  been  completed  and  then 
turns  to  practical  exhortations  founded  upon  the  dogmatic 
basis  thus  laid  down.  The  Pauline  Epistles  may  thus  be 
separated  into  two  chief  divisions,  the  doctrinal  and  the 
practical,  and  they  always  come  in  that  order.^^  In  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the  hortatory  portions  are  scattered 
throughout  the  epistle,  instead  of  being  kept  to  the  close. 
Each  separate  portion  of  the  argument  has  its  appropriate 
exhortation  appended  to  it,  and  the  completion  of  the  argu- 
ment is  deferred  again  and  again  until  these  exhortations 
have  been  interpolated. 

Paul  could  not  have  brooked  such  interruptions.  He  was 
an  athlete,  running  with  his  eye  on  the  goal.  That  goal  had 
to  be  reached  before  he  paused  to  take  breath  or  to  gather 
up  the  fruits  of  his  victory.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  in  no  hurry.  He  stops  to  clinch  each  step 
of  his  discussion  with  an  exhortation  which  will  drive  home 
that  particular  portion  of  the  truth.  See  the  exhortations 
of  2.1-4;  3- 7-19  J  4.  14-16;  5.  1 1-6.  20;  10,19-39,  as  well 
as  12,  1-13.  19.  Here  is  a  clear  distinction  from  all  the 
epistles  of  Paul. 

4.  Different  Beginning  and  Ending.  All  of  the  Pauline 

«  Heb.  10.  10;  13.  8,  21.        «  Heb.  2.  3;  7.  14.         **  Heb.  13.  20. 
**  Hayes,  Paul  and  His  Epistles,  p.  69. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  39 

epistles  have  an  opening  thanksgiving  or  a  closing  saluta- 
tion and  subscription  in  his  own  name.^®  This  epistle  has 
none  of  these  things.  The  reasons  suggested  for  this  dif- 
ference by  the  Alexandrian  Fathers  upon  the  supposition  of 
the  Pauline  authorship  never  have  seemed  satisfactory  and 
no  one  can  suggest  any  other  or  better  reasons  to-day. 

H  Paul  had  written  this  epistle,  it  seems  to  us  that  he 
would  have  been  all  the  more  likely  to  begin  it  with  a  con- 
ciliatory address,  allaying  as  far  as  might  be  any  prejudice 
against  himself  personally  and  so  preparing  the  way  for  his 
message.  The  writer  of  this  epistle,  on  the  contrary,  does 
not  feel  the  need  of  anything  of  the  kind.  He  plunges  at 
once  into  his  subject,  like  Caesar  in  his  Commentaries.  His 
first  sentence  betrays  not  the  suppliant  for  a  hearing  but 
the  herald  sure  of  a  favorable  reception  for  his  message 
and  anxious  only  to  make  clear  the  imperial  worth  of  that 
message  itself.  This  difference,  if  it  stood  alone,  might  not 
be  sufficient  to  prove  that  Paul  had  not  varied  his  usual  cus- 
tom for  once  and  for  some  reason  unknown ;  but  in  connec- 
tion with  all  these  other  differences  it  must  be  accorded  its 
due  weight  in  deciding  the  matter  at  issue. 

5.  The  Use  of  a  Different  Bible  Text.  The  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  never  uses  a  Hebrew  Bible.  His 
authoritative  text  evidently  is  the  text  of  the  Septuagint. 
When  the  Septuagint  gives  an  incorrect  translation  of  the 
Hebrew,  as  in  the  quotation  in  Heb.  10.  5,  where  the  Sep- 
tuagint reads,  "A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  but  the  He- 
brew Bible  has,  "Mine  ears  hast  thou  pierced,"  the  writer 
of  this  epistle  does  not  correct  the  Greek  by  the  Hebrew,  as 
Paul  very  often  does,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  seems  to  be 
sublimely  unconscious  that  his  text  is  not  the  original  and 
inspired  Scripture,  and  he  makes  the  mistranslation  bear  the 
brunt  of  his  argument  at  this  point. 


«  Hayes,  Paul  and  His  Epistles,  p.  69. 


40  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Besides  this  continuous  and  uncorrected  use  of  the  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament  which  distinguishes  this  author 
from  Paul,  he  seems  to  use  a  different  text  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  in  all  of  his  quotations.  Paul  uses  what  we  call  the 
Codex  Vaticanus.  The  author  of  Hebrews  always  cites 
the  Codex  Alexandrinus.  Wherever  these  two  codices  dif- 
fer with  each  other  in  their  reading  Paul  uses  the  one  text 
and  our  author  the  other.  There  are  three  quotations  from 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  which  do 
not  correspond  exactly  either  with  the  Septuagint  or  the 
Hebrew,  namely.  Gen.  22.  r6f .  in  Heb.  6.  I3f. ;  Exod.  24.  8 
in  Heb.  9.  20;  and  Deut.  32.  35  in  Heb.  10.  30.  These  differ- 
ences may  be  due  to  inexact  memory  or  they  may  be  current 
and  traditional  forms  of  these  texts.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
the  last  of  the  three  is  found  in  Rom.  12.  19  in  exactly  the 
same  form  as  in  Hebrews.  Both  Paul  and  our  author  may 
have  adopted  a  popular  variant  reading  at  this  point,  pre- 
served in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos. 

6.  Difference  in  Quotation.  There  is  a  characteristic 
difference  in  the  form  of  citation  from  the  Old  Testament, 
(i)  There  are  twenty-nine  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Of  these,  twenty-one  are 
peculiar  to  this  epistle  among  the  New  Testament  books. 
Twenty-three  of  them  are  taken  from  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  Psalter.  All  but  two  of  the  primary  passages  quoted 
as  referring  to  the  Person  and  the  work  of  Christ  are  from 
the  Psalms.  The  two  exceptions  are  from  2  Sam.  i.  5  and 
Isa.  2.  i3.-*7 

(2)  In  the  epistles  of  Paul  we  find  Isaiah  and  other 
Old  Testament  writers  quoted  by  name  sometimes,  but  in 
this  epistle  the  name  of  a  human  author  does  not  occur 
from  beginning  to  end.  There  is  an  apparent  exception  to 
this  statement  in  4.  7,  but  the  exception  is  only  apparent  and 

"  Compare  Westcott's  essay  "On  the  Use  of  the  Old  Testament  in 

the  Epistles,"  in  his  Commentary. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS'  41 

not  real.  Bruce  has  suggested  that  it  is  only  fitting  that 
the  author  of  an  epistle  which  begins  by  virtually  claiming 
God  as  the  only  speaker  in  Scripture,'*^  and  Jesus  as  the  one 
speaker  in  the  New  Testament,  should  suppress  his  own 
name  throughout  the  epistle ;  but  all  other  names  of  human 
speakers  and  authors  are  omitted  as  well  as  his  own.  God 
has  spoken  in  the  ages  past  through  many  men,  God  has 
spoken  to  this  age  through  his  Son.  In  the  presence  of  the 
Son  we  lose  sight  of  all  lesser  lights.  We  listen  to  God  and 
to  God  speaking  through  Jesus,  and  all  minor  authorities 
retire  into  the  background.  Their  identity  is  of  compara- 
tively little  importance  or  of  no  importance  at  all.  The  all- 
important  thing  in  connection  with  them  is  that  God  had 
spoken  through  them,  and  therefore  they  had  divine  au- 
thority for  their  message. 

(3)  In  this  epistle  the  formulae  of  citation  are  "God 
saith"  and  "the  Holy  Spirit  saith"  and  "He  testifieth"  and 
"somewhere  some  one  testified,  saying."  Paul  never  uses 
these  introductory  phrases.  He  says,  "Isaiah  testifies,"  or 
"Scripture  says,"  or  "it  has  been  written."  This  last  for- 
mula occurs  sixteen  times  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
alone.  If  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  no  one  can  suggest  any 
reason  why  he  should  not  have  his  customary  formulae  in 
it.  The  consistent  and  persistent  use  of  different  formulae 
points  to  a  different  authorship. 

7.  The  Affiliation  v^ith  the  Alexandrian  Literature  and 
Theology,  (i)  There  is  a  larger  use  of  the  apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  than  we  find  in  the  writings  of 
Paul. 

(2)  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  has  so  many  and  so 
close  parallels  with  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  an  Alexandrian 
apocryphal  book  of  this  period,  that  Noack  and  Dean 
Plumptre  have  decided  that  both  were  written  by  the  same 

«  Heb.  I.  I. 


42  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

man,  one  before  and  the  other  after  his  conversion  to  Chris- 
tianity. The  two  books  are  ahke  in  their  sonorous  style, 
their  use  of  compound  words,  their  preference  for  unusual 
terms,  and  their  accumulation  of  epithets.  Clement  of  Rome 
used  both  books.  Irenaeus  mentions  them  together,  as  if 
they  might  have  come  from  the  same  source.  They  are  men- 
tioned in  close  juxtaposition  in  the  Muratorian  Fragment. 
Some  of  the  most  unusual  terms  occur  in  both  books,  and 
they  both  represent  an  attitude  of  dependence  upon  Philo 
and  of  acquaintance  with  his  works.  So  great  is  the  affinity 
between  them  in  style,  in  language,  in  method  of  argument, 
as  well  as  in  their  underlying  philosophy  and  their  presenta- 
tion of  contemporary  Alexandrian  thought,  that  it  surely 
comes  within  the  realm  of  possibility  that  the  same  man  may 
have  written  them;  and  in  any  case  all  of  these  things  dif- 
ferentiate them  from  all  of  the  writings  of  Paul. 

(3)  Philo  was  the  great  master  of  the  Jewish- Alexandrian 
school.  His  formulation  of  the  Logos  teaching  prepared 
the  way  for  the  Logos  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament.  John 
seems  to  have  made  the  largest  use  of  Philo's  philosophy 
at  this  point.  The  apostle  Paul  gives  little  evidence  of  hav- 
ing been  influenced  by  it.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  dif- 
fers from  all  other  books  in  the  New  Testament  in  the  rep- 
resentation of  the  Philonian  philosophy  throughout.  The 
parallels  are  most  numerous  and  striking,  as  a  glance  at  the 
introductory  verses  will  show. 

Did  Philo  call  the  Logos  God's  utterance  and  give  him 
the  supereminent  title  of  God's  Son?^^  In  Heb.  i.  2  we  are 
introduced  to  the  Christ  with  the  phrase,  "God  .  .  . 
hath  at  the  end  of  these  days  spoken  to  us  in  his  Son,  whom 
he  appointed  heir  of  all  things."  Did  Philo  say,  "The  in- 
strument in  the  creation  of  the  cosmos  was  God's  Logos, 
through  whom  it  was  prepared  ?"^^     In  Hebrews  we  read 


Agr.  Noe,  12.  «•  Cher.,  35. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  43 

of  the  Christ,  "Through  whom  also  he  made  the  worlds !" 
(i,  2).  Did  Philo  call  the  Logos  the  image  of  God^^  and  say 
of  him,  He  "is  the  bond  of  all  things,  and  holds  together 
and  binds  all  the  parts,  and  prevents  them  from  being  dis- 
solved and  separated"  P^^  In  the  first  sentence  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews  we  read,  God's  Son  is  "the  effulgence  of 
his  glory,  and  the  very  image  of  his  substance,  and  uphold- 
ing all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power"  (i.  3). 

Did  Philo  compare  the  Logos  with  the  angels  and  give 
him  the  title  of  supremacy  over  them  saying,  "If  any  one, 
however,  is  not  yet  worthy  to  be  called  a  son  of  God,  let 
him  be  zealous  to  be  adorned  in  accordance  with  his  first- 
born Logos,  the  oldest  angel  .  .  .  for  he  is  called  Be- 
ginning, and  Name  of  God,  etc."?^^  In  Hebrews  we  read. 
He  "sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high; 
having  become  by  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath 
inherited  a  more  excellent  name  than  they"  (1.3,  4).  Did 
Philo  call  the  Logos  the  Firstborn  and  God?^^  See  these 
titles  again  appearing  in  Hebrews,  "When  he  again  bringeth 
in  the  firstborn  into  the  world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the 
angels  of  God  worship  him"  (1.6),  and  "Of  the  Son  he 
saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and  ever"  (1.8).  In 
these  eight  verses  of  introduction  to  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, in  which  the  being,  doing,  and  supremacy  of  the  Son 
are  described,  we  have  at  least  eight  points  of  contact  with 
the  phraseology  and  formulation  of  the  Logos  doctrine  of 
Philo.  Can  this  be  mere  accident?  If  so,  it  must  be  ac- 
knowledged that  this  epistle  is  unlike  all  others  in  the  New 
Testament  in  being  strangely  full  of  them. 

Did  Philo  elaborately  busy  himself  to  show  how  in  all 
details  the  description  of  the  high  priest  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment made  him  a  fit  symbol  of  the  Logos,  the  true  High 
Priest,  whose  type  was  Melchizedek  ?^^     Did  he  say  of  this 

"  Leg.  AH.,  ii,  2.  «  Prof.,  20.  ^^  Conf.  Ling.,  28. 

"  Frag.  Mangey,  ii,  625.  »  Leg.  AH.,  iii,  25-6. 


44  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Logos  that  he  was  the  great  High  Priest,  the  Intercessor, 
free  from  participation  in  all  unrighteous  deeds,  of  parents 
immortal  and  most  pure  (that  is,  of  more  than  earthly 
origin),  his  Father,  God,  and  his  mother,  Wisdom?  The 
whole  body  of  our  epistle,  chapters  5-10,  is  an  elaborate 
exposition  of  the  real  high  priesthood  of  the  Christ.  He  is 
the  great  High  Priest  (4.  14),  the  Intercessor,  "he  ever 
liveth  to  make  intercession  for  them"  who  draw  near  to 
God  through  him  (7.  25),  free  from  participation  in  all  un- 
righteous deeds,  "holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  separated  from 
sinners"  (7.26),  "named  of  God  a  high  priest  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedek"  (5.  10),  who  was  "without  father, 
without  mother,  without  genealogy,  having  neither  begin- 
ning of  days  nor  end  of  life,  but  made  like  unto  the  Son 
of  God"  (7- 2)- 

With  this  apparently  unhesitating  appropriation  of  Philo's 
description  of  the  Logos,  do  we  find  no  mention  of  the  Logos 
himself,  and  no  personification  of  the  Logos  and  his  powers, 
such  as  that  in  which  Philo  so  freely  and  persistently  in- 
dulged? We  hardly  dare  answer  in  the  negative,  for  we 
have  so  near  an  approach  to  Philo's  usage  in  Heb.  4.  12. 
Perhaps  of  all  the  many  titles  given  to  the  Logos  in  any  or 
all  of  Philo's  works,  the  very  strangest  and  the  one  which 
strikes  us  as  the  most  unexpected  and  peculiar  is  that  which 
he  uses  in  the  discussion  of  the  Logos  as  the  rational  nature, 
to  illustrate  its  keen  and  piercing  quality,  when  he  calls  it 
'O  Tofievg,  The  Cutter  ;^6  and  remarkably  enough  it  is  a 
suggestion  of  this  title  which  meets  us  in  the  single  instance 
of  a  half  personification  of  the  Logos  in  Heb.  4.  12. 

The  passage  reads:  "For  [God's  Logos,  6  Aoyof  rov  0£oi),] 
the  Word  of  God  is  living,  and  active,  and  sharper 
[ro^wrepof]  than  any  two-edged  sword,  and  piercing  even 
to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints  and  marrow, 


«  Quis  rer.  div.  haer.,  26. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  45 

and  quick  to  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart. 
And  there  is  no  creature  that  is  not  manifest  in  his  sight: 
but  all  things  are  naked  and  laid  open  before  the  eyes  of 
him  with  whom  we  have  to  do.  Having  then  a  great  high 
priest,  who  hath  passed  through  the  heavens,  Jesus  the 
Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  confession"  (4.  12-14). 
This  seems  very  close  indeed  to  an  ascription  of  the  Logos 
title,  with  a  suggestion  of  the  old  Philonian  attributes,  to 
Jesus  the  Son  of  God.  If  we  could  be  sure  that  this  was 
what  the  author  meant,  we  would  have  in  this  passage  the 
first  illustration  of  the  use  of  the  Logos  title  in  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament;  for  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
undoubtedly  of  earlier  date  than  any  of  the  Johannine  books. 
Carpzov,  Siegfried,  and  others  have  collected  the  parallels 
between  Philo  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Bleek 
makes  a  list  of  twenty-two  passages  in  which  he  notes  re- 
semblance between  them.  These  parallel  passages  include: 
(i)  Similar  formulae  of  quotation.  We  already  have  no- 
ticed that  the  phrases  with  which  this  epistle  introduces 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  never  are  found  in  the 
epistles  of  Paul,  but  we  note  now  that  they  are  found  in 
the  writings  of  Philo.  (2)  Similar  forms  of  quotation,  as 
in  Heb.  13.  5,  where  the  author  of  this  epistle  quotes  cer- 
tain words  as  from  Scripture,  although  the  exact  form 
of  them  cannot  be  found  anywhere  in  the  Bible.  However, 
the  same  quotation  is  to  be  found  word  for  word  in  Philo. 
(3)  The  same  use  of  Old  Testament  passages  and  narra- 
tives. They  refer  to  the  same  Old  Testament  characters, 
Abel,  Noah,  Abraham,  Moses ;  and  they  emphasize  the  same 
aspects  in  their  lives.  (4)  The  same  conceptions  of  Old 
Testament  usage  and  symbolism.  (5)  The  same  funda- 
mental conception  of  the  antithesis  between  the  world  of 
fleeting  phenomena  and  the  world  of  eternal  realities.  (6) 
The  same  Platonic  notion  of  Ideas,  as  Divine  Pre-existent 
Archetypes.    Wernle  has  said,  "From  the  theoretical  point 


46  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

of  view  the  Christianity  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
Platonic  philosophy  plus  Christian  Hope."  To  which  An- 
drews adds,  "The  author  of  Hebrews  was  the  first  to  see, 
to  quote  the  phrase  of  Justin  Martyr,  that  'the  Platonic 
dogmas  are  not  foreign  to  Christianity,'  but  that  Christ  is 
the  fulfillment  not  only  of  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
but  of  the  Platonic  philosophy  as  well."57  (7)  Numerous 
striking  verbal  affinities,  as  in  the  use  of  d^Trov  and  w? 
iTTOf  elneiv,  and  underlying  thought  affinity  throughout. 

Von  Soden  sums  up  his  whole  discussion  of  the  depend- 
ence of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  upon  Philo  by  saying, 
"It  is  beyond  question  that  one  cannot  understand  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  without  Philo,  and  that  its  author 
before  he  was  a  Christian  had  been  a  disciple  of  the  Alex- 
andrian theologian,  and  that  without  doubt  he  had  known 
Philo  himself,  and  that  as  a  Christian  he  had  made  the  most 
of  the  ideas  he  had  received  from  this  master,  so  far  as 
they  appeared  to  him  serviceable  for  the  understanding  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."^^ 

Dean  Plumptre  makes  a  study  of  the  thoughts  and  words 
used  in  common  by  Philo  and  our  author  and  says,  "The 
result  of  the  induction  is  a  conviction  amounting  to  little 
short  of  absolute  certainty  that  the  writer  of  the  epistle  was 
either  personally  a  disciple  of  Philo,  or  that  he  had  at  one 
time  of  his  life  made  his  writings  the  object  of  such  con- 
stant study  that  he  had  learned  to  speak,  almost  without 
knowing  it,  in  the  same  dialect,  and  to  think  the  same 
thoughts."^ ^  Whedon  concludes  that  the  epistle  was  writ- 
ten to  save  the  Alexandrine  class  of  Christians,  and  he 
says,  "The  whole  epistle  is  one  great  effort  to  reconstruct 
Philonean   Messianism  into   Christian   Messianism."^"      In 


"  Expositor,  Eighth  Series,  vol.  xiv,  p.  362. 

"  Von  Soden,  Hand-Commentar.    Dritter  Band.    Zweite  Abtheilung, 
p.  5.  6»  Expositor,  vol.  i,  p.  337. 

*"  Whedon,  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  p.  42. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  47 

view  of  these  facts,  H.  T.  Andrews  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  "If 
the  author  of  Hebrews  had  not  become  a  Christian,  he  might 
very  possibly  have  become  Philo's  successor  at  Alexan- 
dria."®^  Schwegler,  KostHn,  Delitzsch,  Hilgenfeld,  Pflei- 
derer,  Immer,  Holtzmann,  JiiHcher,  and  others  agree  with 
these  authorities  in  affirming  the  dependence  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  upon  Philo;  and  as  soon  as  this  is  recog- 
nized we  have  in  this  one  fact  a  broad  line  of  distinction 
between  this  epistle  and  all  the  epistles  of  Paul.  This  affilia- 
tion with  Alexandrianism  marks  a  different  authorship. 
As  soon  as  the  Alexandrian  affinities  of  this  epistle  have 
been  estabhshed  the  modern  mind  is  apt  to  discount  the 
value  of  the  argument  in  the  epistle  because  it  is  founded 
upon  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  characteristic 
of  Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  school  and  that  method  has 
been  generally  discredited  among  scientific  interpreters  to- 
day. This  general  attitude  toward  the  epistle  has  been 
voiced  by  a  recent  writer  as  follows :  "The  form  of  the  ar- 
gument may  be  described  as  either  rabbinical  or  Alex- 
andrian. The  writer,  after  laying  down  his  proposition, 
proceeds  to  prove  it  by  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament, 
taken  out  of  their  context  and  historical  connection,  adapted 
and  even  changed  to  suit  his  present  purpose.  This  practice 
was  common  to  Palestinian  and  Alexandrian  writers ;  as  was 
also  the  use  of  allegory,  which  plays  a  large  part  in  He- 
brews. But  the  writer's  allegorical  method  dififers  from  that 
of  the  rabbis  in  that  it  is  like  Philo's,  part  of  a  conscious 
philosophy,  according  to  which  the  whole  of  the  past  and 
present  history  of  the  world  is  only  a  shadow  of  the  true 
realities  which  are  laid  up  in  heaven.  His  interest  in  his- 
torical facts,  in  Old  Testament  writers,  in  Jewish  institutions 
and  even  in  the  historical  life  of  Jesus,  is  quite  subordinate 
to  his  prepossession  with  the  eternal  and  heavenly  reaUties 


"  Expositor,  Eighth  Series,  vol.  xiv,  p.  350. 


48  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

which  they,  in  more  or  less  shadowy  fashion,  represent."®^ 
This  is  the  commonly  held  opinion  of  the  epistle  and  it  would 
be  quite  a  serious  indictment  of  the  validity  of  its  argument 
if  it  were  strictly  true. 

However,  a  still  more  recent  writer  suggests  that  some  of 
these  statements  may  be  qualified  to  a  certain  extent.  He 
says,  "In  striking  contrast  to  the  allegorical  method  of  Philo, 
and  to  Paul's  custom  of  adopting  Old  Testament  phrases  to 
express  ideas  different  from  those  of  the  original  writer,  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  true  to  the  historical 
method  of  interpretation,  and  uses  Old  Testament  passages 
in  the  exact  sense  which  the  first  writer  himself  put  upon 
them.  This  is  true  even  of  the  chapter  dealing  with  Mel- 
chizedek,  where  the  epistle  seems  to  approximate  most  closely 
to  the  Philonic  method  of  exegesis.  Melchizedek  remains  the 
priest-king  of  Salem.  He  is  not  a  mere  symbol,  still  less  is 
he  identical  with  Christ."  And  again,  the  author  of  this 
epistle  "realizes  the  true  method  of  historical  interpretation: 
a  passage  of  Scripture  must  be  explained  in  the  light  of  its 
context;  its  real  meaning  is  that  which  its  writer  intended 
it  to  bear.  These  are  the  principles  which  lie  at  the  root  of 
all  sound  biblical  criticism."^^ 

Then  it  may  be  true  that  the  epistle  has  Alexandrian  affini- 
ties and  yet  is  free  from  some  at  least  of  the  Alexandrian 
faults.  It  may  have  taken  the  best  while  it  rejected  the  worst 
of  its  features.  The  disciple  may  have  improved  upon  his 
master,  while  an  acknowledged  disciple  still.  At  any  rate, 
in  both  his  discipleship  and  his  improvements  he  may  be 
distinguished  clearly  from  the  apostle  Paul. 

8.  Ignorance  of  Temple  Ritual.  There  is  apparent  lack 
of  acquaintance  with  the  temple  ritual.  Paul  had  resided  in 
Jerusalem  for  years  and  must  have  been  acquainted  with  all 

**T.  Rees,  International  Standard  Bible  Encyclopaedia,  p.  1361. 
«*F.  S.  Marsh,  in  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  vol.  i,  pp. 
540,542. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  49 

the  details  of  the  temple  ritual  from  personal  observation. 
The  descriptions  of  the  ritual  service  in  this  epistle  are  drawn 
entirely  from  the  Old  Testament  description  of  the  appoint- 
ments in  the  tabernacle.  The  temple  of  this  epistle  is  not 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem  but  the  tabernacle  of  the  Pentateuch. 
There  are  certain  inaccuracies  of  statement  in  the  epistle 
which  can  be  easily  explained  if  the  author  was  dependent 
for  all  of  his  knowledge  upon  what  he  could  read  in  the 
sacred  books ;  but  they  are  such  inaccuracies  as  Paul  or  any- 
one who  had  been  present  in  the  actual  temple  worship  of 
that  day  never  would  have  made. 

9.  Second  Generation  of  Believers.  The  author  of  this 
epistle  does  not  call  himself  an  apostle  and  makes  no  claim 
to  apostoHc  authority  in  any  portion  of  his  writing.  On  the 
contrary,  in  one  passage  he  expressly  includes  himself  among 
the  second  generation  of  believers,  those  who  had  not  them- 
selves seen  or  heard  the  Lord  but  to  whom  the  words  of  the 
Lord  had  been  handed  down  by  those  who  had  received 
them.  This  position  of  dependence  upon  tradition  is  strenu- 
ously repudiated  by  Paul.  He  always  insisted  that  he  had 
become  an  apostle,  second  in  authority  to  none,  and  that  his 
knowledge  of  the  truth  had  come  to  him  not  from  man, 
neither  by  man,  but  by  direct  revelation  from  Jesus  Christ 
and  God  the  Father. 

Rendall  says,  "The  contradiction  between  the  letter  and 
the  spirit  of  the  two  statements  found  in  Gal.  i.  i  and  Heb. 
2.  3  is  so  palpable  as  almost  to  exclude  the  possibility  of 
reconciling  them  as  proceeding  from  the  same  pen."^^ 
Professor  Gardiner,  after  quoting  Heb.  2.  3,  declares,  "Paul 
everywhere  lays  such  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  his  presen- 
tation of  Christian  truth  was  in  no  way  whatever  derived 
from  man,  but  was  from  express  divine  instruction  given  to 
himself  personally,  that  this  passage  must  form  a  presump- 


•*  Rendall,  op.  ciL,  p.  23. 


50  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

tion  against  the  Pauline  authorship  so  strong  as  to  be  set 
aside  only  by  clear  and  positive  evidence."^^  Then  he  goes 
on  to  show  that  there  is  no  such  evidence,  either  from  ex- 
ternal or  internal  sources.  Mentioning  the  same  statement 
found  in  Heb.  2.  3,  Philip  Schafif  says,  "This  passage  alone 
is  conclusive  and  decided  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Beza  against 
the  Pauline  authorship."^^ 

We  now  have  given  nine  reasons  for  concluding  against 
the  Pauline  authorship.  Of  course  all  of  these  are  not  of 
equal  weight,  (i)  There  might  be  some  good  reason,  un- 
known to  us,  why  the  apostle  Paul  would  use  a  new  method 
of  argument  and  a  new  dispositton  of  his  material,  and  why 
he  might  choose  to  omit  his  usual  salutation  and  thanksgiv- 
ing, and  why  he  made  use  of  a  new  form  of  the  Greek  text. 
No  one  of  these  facts,  if  they  stood  alone,  would  seem  suffi- 
cient to  rule  out  the  possibility  at  least  of  the  Pauline  author- 
ship. 

(2)  It  seems  very  difficult  to  believe,  however,  that  there 
could  be  any  possible  reason  for  Paul  to  change  his  connect- 
ing particles  or  his  formulae  of  Old  Testament  citations  in 
this  one  epistle.  On  the  supposition  of  the  Pauline  author- 
ship it  seems  equally  difficult  to  explain  Paul's  apparent  ig- 
norance of  the  temple  appointments  and  ritual.  These  differ- 
ences from  the  Pauline  epistles  seem  to  throw  the  weight  of 
probability  against  authorship  by  Paul. 

(3)  To  many  scholars  the  single  passage,  Heb.  2.  3,  seems 
decisive  of  the  whole  matter.  The  difference  in  style  has 
been  the  chief  objection  to  the  Pauline  authorship  from 
ancient  times.  The  affiliation  with  Alexandrinism  has  been 
increasingly  recognized  in  modern  times.  Any  of  these  three 
reasons  would  seem  to  be  fatal  to  any  assertion  of  Paul's 
authorship,  and  when  we  add  to  all  three  of  them  the  con- 
siderations which  already  had  thrown  the  weight  of  prob- 

"  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  First  Series,  vol.  xiv,  p.  343. 
«  Schaff,  op.  cii.,  p.  820. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  51 

ability  against  the  Pauline  authorship,  and  then  remember 
that  there  are  still  other  differences  which,  if  not  conclusive 
in  themselves,  become  so  in  connection  with  these  more 
radical  and  decisive  arguments,  the  sum  total  of  the  reasons 
thus  accumulated  against  the  Pauline  authorship  has  been 
sufficient  to  convince  modern  scholarship  that  we  must  add 
a  new  author  to  the  New  Testament  list  of  writers  when  we 
admit  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  into  our  canon.  Words- 
worth and  Lewin  still  think  that  the  style  of  the  epistle  is 
that  of  Paul,  but  Ramsay  says  that  their  opinions  are  "ex- 
amples of  the  remarkable  truth  that  there  is  no  view  about 
the  books  of  the  Bible  so  paradoxical  as  not  to  find  some 
good  scholar  for  its  champion."^'' 

VI.  Relation  to  Paul  and  the  Pauline  Theology 

Bruce  declares  that  the  writer  of  Hebrews  was  not  only 
not  Paul,  but  he  was  not  even  a  disciple  of  Paul.  We  can- 
not agree  with  this  conclusion,  for  the  following  reasons: 
I.  In  13.23  we  read,  "Know  ye  that  our  brother  Timothy 
hath  been  set  at  liberty ;  with  whom,  if  he  come  shortly,  I  will 
see  you."  This  passage  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  author 
was  a  friend  to  Timothy,  and  Timothy  belonged  to  the 
Pauline  circle;  and  any  friend  to  Timothy  in  all  probabihty 
also  was  a  friend  to  Paul.  2.  In  Heb.  10.  30  there  is  a 
quotation,  "Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me,  I  will  recom- 
pense," probably  intended  to  reproduce  Deut.  32.  35.  It  is 
found  word  for  word  in  Rom.  12.  19,  though  neither  in 
Romans  nor  in  Hebrews  is  it  an  exact  quotation  from  the 
Septuagint.  3.  There  are  paralleHsms  of  language  and 
thought  between  this  epistle  and  some  of  those  of  Paul. 
Compare  Heb.  2.  14  with  i  Cor.  15.  26  and  Heb.  2.  8  with 
I  Cor.  15.27.  Of  course  these  coincidences  may  be  acci- 
dental. Bruce  thinks  rightly  that  it  is  easier  to  show  acquaint- 


Expositor,  Fifth  Series,  vol.  ix,  p.  409. 


52  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

ance  with  Philo's  writings  than  with  the  writings  of  Paul. 
However,  these  parallels  in  quotation  and  in  thought  may 
show  that  the  writer  of  Hebrews  had  read  the  epistles  of 
Paul  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Corinthians  at  least.  4.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  fundamentally 
at  one  with  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  Bruce  allows  that  while 
the  author  was  not  a  personal  follower  of  Paul  he  was  in 
thorough  sympathy  with  all  the  leading  positions  of  Pau- 
linism.  He  believes  as  fully  as  Paul  in  the  providence  and 
purpose  of  God  manifest  in  all  the  history  of  Israel,  in  re- 
demption through  the  hfe  and  death  of  Jesus,  and  in  the 
present  and  eternal  sovereignty  of  the  exalted  Lord.  These 
things,  the  certain  comradeship  with  Timothy,  the  few  par- 
allels with  PauUne  expressions,  and  the  thorough-going  sym- 
pathy with  the  Pauline  spirit  and  theology,  seem  to  us  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  our  author  was  a  Paulinist  at  heart,  and 
we  see  no  reason  for  deciding  that  he  may  not  have  belonged 
to  Paul's  personal  company. 

However,  he  was  an  independent  spirit;  and  this  epistle, 
as  Pfieiderer  says,  is  "a  thoroughly  original  attempt  to  es- 
tablish the  main  results  of  Paulinism  upon  new  presupposi- 
tions and  in  an  entirely  independent  way."®^  Delitzsch  de- 
clares, "The  form  of  the  epistle  is  not  Pauline,  and  the 
thoughts,  though  never  un-Pauline,  yet  often  go  beyond  the 
Pauline  type  of  doctrine,  .  .  .  and  even  where  this  is 
^  not  the  case  they  seem  to  be  peculiarly  placed  and  applied."^^ 
This  independence  over  against  PauUnism  is  observable  at 
several  points. 

I.  The  destination  of  the  epistle  naturally  leads  the  author 
to  ignore  the  Gentiles  from  beginning  to  end.  He  doubtless 
believed  with  Paul  in  the  universal  destination  of  the  gospel, 
but  there  is  no  suggestion  of  it  anywhere  in  this  epistle. 
The  seed  of  Abraham  is  addressed  throughout,  and  the  hori- 

•8  Pfieiderer,  Paulinism  II,  53. 
*  Com.,  vol.  i,  p.  4. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  53 

zon  of  the  epistle  is  limited  to  the  Hebrew  race.  Had  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  himself  written  this  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  he  surely  would  have  slipped  in  somewhere  or 
other  an  apology  for  his  mission  to  them  and  some  sugges- 
tion of  the  wider  fellowship  into  which  the  Jew  had  been 
ushered  by  the  universal  efficacy  of  the  atoning  death  of 
Christ,  and  into  which  the  Gentile  now  had  entered. 

2.  Paul  said  some  very  harsh  things  about  the  law.  He  \ 
declared  that  sin  and  death  came  through  it,  and  the  Chris-  j 
tian  had  been  redeemed  from  the  yoke  of  the  law.  He 
thought  the  law  was  incidental  and  subordinate,  and  in  his 
writings  he  set  it  in  opposition  to  the  free  grace  of  Christ. 
By  the  law  men  were  condemned  to  die;  they  were  to  be 
saved  only  through  faith  in  the  gospel  provision  of  grace. 
The  writer  of  this  epistle  does  not  look  at  the  law  in  this 
light.  He  has  no  wounding  word  to  speak  against  it.  It  is 
an  essential  part  of  God's  economy,  and  it  simply  is  trans- 
figured to  higher  potencies  under  the  Christian  regime. 
Paul's  conception  of  the  law  always  aroused  the  antagonism 
of  the  Jews,  and  they  hated  him  and  his  doctrine.  The 
conception  of  this  epistle  would  have  flattered  rather  than 
angered  them.  To  the  author  of  this  epistle  the  law  was  as 
sacred  as  it  could  be  to  any  Jew  in  the  land. 

3.  In  Paul's  epistles  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  sacrifice  I 
of  the  Christ.  In  this  epistle  the  emphasis  is  on  the  sacri-  / 
ficial  ministry  of  Christ.  The  theology  is  the  same,  but  the 
point  of  view  is  different.  Paul  sees  the  victim ;  the  author 
of  this  epistle  sees  the  priest.  It  is  the  conception  of  the 
heavenly  priesthood  of  Christ  which  fills  this  epistle,  while 
it  never  is  mentioned  anywhere  in  the  epistles  of  Paul.  The 
notion  seems  to  be  foreign  to  his  thought. 

4.  "To  Paul,  the  contrast  between  Judaism  and  Christian-  I 
ity  was  a  contrast  between  Sin  and  Mercy,  between  Curse  1 
and  Blessing,  between  Slavery  and  Freedom ;  but  to  this 
writer  it  is  a  contrast  almost  exclusively  between  Type  and 


54  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Antitype,  between  outline  and  image,  between  shadow  and 
substance,  between  indication  and  reality."^*' 

5.  The  characteristic  key-words  of  the  Pauline  theology 
occur  in  this  epistle  but  with  new  connotations.  "Faith" 
is  a  "grasp  of  unseen  reality"  and  "righteousness"  is  simply 
ethical  righteousness  here. 

6.  In  one  respect  at  least  the  author  seems  to  have  ad- 
vanced beyond  the  teaching  and  practice  of  Paul.  Paul 
maintained  the  freedom  of  the  Gentiles  from  all  bondage  to 
the  Jewish  ordinances,  but  he  himself  zealously  observed  all 
of  them;  and  he  testified  to  every  man  who  received  circum- 

'  cision  that  he  was  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.'^^  He  never 
j  thought  of  asking  his  Jewish  brethren  to  abandon  the 
I  Mosaic  system  of  worship.  He  was  accused  of  having 
spoken  against  the  temple  and  circumcision  and  the  customs 
of  the  Jews,  but  he  repudiated  the  charge.  He  took  pains 
to  prove  that  there  was  no  truth  in  the  things  reported  con- 
cerning him,  and  that  he  walked  orderly,  keeping  the  law.'''^ 
On  the  other  hand,  the  contention  of  this  epistle  is  that 
the  whole  Levitical  dispensation  with  all  of  its  ordinances 
and  its  worship  was  nigh  unto  vanishing  away.  It  had  been 
made  obsolete  by  the  life  and  death  and  ministry  of  Jesus. 
It  had  been  removed  from  this  earth  and  transferred  to  the 
heavenly  sanctuary,  where  it  was  more  efficacious  than  ever 
before.  It  had  been  authoritative  in  the  past,  but  now  it 
belonged  to  the  past  alone  as  far  as  any  obligation  to  observe 
it  in  forms  and  ceremonies  was  concerned.  The  Christian 
Jew  was  emancipated  from  it  as  fully  as  any  Gentile  ever 
had  been. 

This  was  not  the  Pauline  attitude.  It  was  more  radical 
and  more  liberal  than  Paul  himself  ever  became.  Before 
the  logic  of  facts  had  rendered  the  temple  worship  in  Jeru- 
salem impossible,  this  epistle  had  proved  that  there  was  no 

"  Cambridge  Greek  Testament,  Hebrews,  p.  xxii. 
*i  Gal.  5.  3.  "  Acts  21.  21,  24. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  55 

reasonable  ground  for  its  continuance  among  the  disciples 
of  Christ.  It  must  have  been  of  great  help  to  the  whole 
Jewish-Christian  Church  in  accepting  the  inevitable  when 
it  came  and  in  seeing  that  when  the  Jewish  ritual  had  van- 
ished from  the  earth,  never  to  be  restored  again,  their  Chris- 
tian faith  was  not  destroyed  and  the  enjoyment  of  all  the 
privileges  of  their  Christian  religion  was  in  no  degree  in- 
jured or  lessened.  On  the  basis  laid  down  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  Jewish  Christianity  could  swing  clear  of 
the  old  ritual  and  rejoice  in  the  consciousness  that  it  had  lost 
nothing  in  the  disappearance  of  this  ritual  from  among  men, 
while  it  had  gained  everything  for  which  the  old  worship 
had  stood  by  the  acceptance  of  the  highpriesthood  of  Christ. 
Paul  was  the  great  radical  of  the  church  as  far  as  the  Gen- 
tiles were  concerned.  The  writer  of  this  epistle  is  more 
radical  than  Paul  in  his  conception  of  the  liberty  which  the 
gospel  inevitably  and  consistently  must  bring  to  the  Jews. 
He  was  Pauhne  in  spirit,  independent  in  thought,  and  more 
advanced  than  any  other  writer  in  the  New  Testament  in 
the  teaching  of  the  emancipation  of  the  Jews  in  and  through 
the  gospel  of  Christ. 

VII.  Who  is  the  Author? 

Are  we  able  to  determine  the  author  of  the  epistle? 
Zahn  is  altogether  right  in  declaring  that  "there  is  no  tra- 
dition regarding  the  author  of  Hebrews  which  compares 
with  the  traditions  regarding  the  authors  of  the  other 
New  Testament  writings  in  age,  unanimity,  and  an  orig- 
inality hard  to  invent."'^  Under  these  circumstances  the 
way  is  open  for  suggestions  of  any  more  or  less  plausible 
sort,  and  there  are  authorities  to  be  quoted  and  some  reasons 
to  be  given  for  almost  every  possible  name  in  the  early 
church.    We  will  make  a  partial  list  of  these. 

"  Zahn,  op.  cit.,  p.  305. 


56  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

1.  There  always  have  been  those  who  held  to  the  author- 
ship by  Paul.  We  have  decided  against  it,  but  we  recall 
that  the  early  Eastern  church  practically  was  unanimous  in 
its  testimony  that  Paul  wrote  the  epistle;  and  Jerome  and 
Augustine  and  Chrysostom  were  disposed  to  accept  its 
authority  in  this  matter,  and  the  tradition  of  the  Pauline 
authorship  was  maintained  in  the  whole  church  from  their 
time  down  to  the  days  of  the  Reformation.  Among  still 
later  scholars  who  have  held  to  the  old  view  we  may  men- 
tion Owen,  Mill,  Carpzov,  Bengel,  Cramer,  Hug,  Heigl, 
Storr,  Moses  Stuart,  Wordsworth,  McCaul,  Forster,  Paulus, 
Olshausen,  Saphir,  Biesenthal,  Kay,  Holtzheuer,  Angus, 
Hofmann,  and  Whedon. 

2.  Clement  of  Rome.  This  is  the  answer  given  by  Erasmus, 
and  by  some  of  the  Roman  Catholic  commentators,  such  as 
Reithmaier  and  Bisping;  but  we  have  an  epistle  of  Clement 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  style  of  this  acknowledged  work 
is  decidedly  different  and  much  inferior  to  that  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  We  learn  from  it  that  Clement  had 
neither  the  originality  in  thought  nor  the  classical  excellence 
of  expression  which  characterizes  this  epistle.  Clement 
knew  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  admired  it  very  much 
and  imitated  it  somewhat ;  but  he  is  only  a  copyist  and  not  an 
original  genius  as  the  author  of  Hebrews  was. 

3.  Aquila.  He  was  suggested  by  Bleek  and  Alford  as  a 
possibility;  but  the  only  reason  for  thinking  of  him  is  that 
he  was  a  Jew  and  a  companion  of  Paul. 

4.  Silas.  Mynster,  Boehme,  and  Godet  seem  to  favor  this 
suggestion.  Like  Aquila,  he  was  a  Jew  and  a  companion 
of  Paul;  but  there  were  so  many  of  whom  these  things  could 
be  said,  and  surely  there  ought  to  be  some  further  reason 
for  deciding  upon  any  one  authorship  before  we  feel  free  to 
rule  out  all  competitors  for  that  honor.  Silas  was  no  Alex- 
andrian, and  it  is  doubtful  if  he  could  be  assigned  to  the 
second  generation  of  believers  or  to  second  rank  in  the 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  57 

church.    In  Acts  15.22  he  is  said  to  be  of  the  company  of 
the  apostles  and  the  elders. 

5.  Titus.  Titus  was  an  able  man,  but  we  have  no  posi- 
tive evidence  for  his  authorship. 

6.  Mark.  Lowndes  champions  his  authorship,  but  here, 
again,  we  have  other  composition  with  which  to  compare 
the  epistle,  and  surely  the  style  of  Hebrews  is  not  the  style 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark. 

7.  Luke.  So  thought  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Calvin, 
Grotius,  Crell,  Lewis,  Eager,  Field,  Delitzsch,  Stier,  Ebrard, 
Bollinger,  and  Alexander.  The  same  objection  holds  here. 
The  style  of  the  epistle  is  not  the  style  of  the  third  Gospel. 
Luke  does  not  have  the  oratorical  temperament  of  this 
writer.  He  probably  was  a  Gentile,  and  he  was  no  Alex- 
andrian. 

8.  Zenas,  the  lawyer.  As  a  professional  man  and  a  com- 
panion of  Paul  we  might  suppose  him  to  have  been  capable 
of  writing  this  epistle. 

9.  Linus.  He  was  the  man  to  whom,  according  to  tradi- 
tion, the  apostles  committed  the  government  of  the  church 
at  Rome,  and  he  is  claimed  as  the  first  post-apostolic  pope. 
Here,  again,  we  have  an  able  man,  and  we  are  free  to  sup- 
pose that  he  could  have  written  this  epistle.  These  two  sug- 
gestions, Zenas  and  Linus,  are  offered  by  W.  H.  Simcox  as 
possibilities;  but  evidently  they  never  can  be  more  than 
that. 

10.  Peter  has  been  proposed  as  the  author  of  this  epistle 
on  the  ground  of  certain  resemblances  of  conceptions  and 
phraseology  in  Hebrews  and  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter. 
Welch,  the  protagonist  of  this  opinion,  thinks  that  by  as- 
cribing the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  Peter  we  give  the 
apostle  to  the  circumcision  something  like  his  due  prom- 
inence in  the  literature  of  the  early  church  alongside  the 
apostle  Paul.  The  contention  does  not  compel  much  con- 
sideration among  modern  scholars. 


58  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

11.  Aristion  is  supposed  to  have  written  the  closing 
verses  of  our  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  and  he  has  been 
proposed  as  the  possible  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews by  Chapman^^  and  Perdelwitz. 

12.  Philip  the  Deacon,  "a  Pauline  before  Paul,"  was  very 
tentatively  conjectured  by  W.  M.  Ramsay ^^  as  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  E.  L.  Hicks  has  cham- 
pioned the  suggestion  most  vigorously  since. '^^  Ramsay 
seems  to  have  found  the  suggestion  first  in  a  series  of  papers 
by  the  Rev.  W.  M.  Lewis.'^^  These  men  conclude  that  the 
epistle  was  written  at  Caesarea  during  Paul's  imprisonment 
there.  Philip,  resident  in  Caesarea  at  that  time  and  in  con- 
stant intercourse  with  Paul  and  as  the  official  representative 
of  the  church  at  Caesarea,  writes  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
to  save  the  wavering  and  to  reconcile  the  Jewish  and  Paul- 
ine elements  in  it.  He  with  Stephen  represented  the  more 
liberal  element  in  the  mother  church  at  Jerusalem  and  after 
Stephen's  martyrdom  he  had  carried  the  gospel  message 
into  Samaria  and  later  had  baptized  an  Ethiopian  eunuch 
and  then  had  evangelized  all  the  cities  from  Azotus  to 
Caesarea. 

He  was  an  original  and  venturesome  spirit,  a  Hellenist 
associated  later  with  Timothy  and  Paul.  He  was  a  Jew, 
acquainted  with  the  Hebrew  tongue  and  at  home  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  It  may  be  possible  that  he  wrote  the 
epistle;  but  the  writing  of  any  Caesarean  epistles  by  Paul  is 
very  doubtful,  and  the  writing  of  this  epistle  at  Caesarea 
is  supported  upon  the  same  doubtful  grounds.  It  would 
be  more  difficult  to  account  for  the  sense  of  imminent  catas- 
trophe which  pervades  the  epistle  if  it  were  dated   from 


^*  Revue  Benedictine,  1905,  vol.  xxii,  p.  50. 
"  Expositor,  Fifth  Series,  vol.  ix,  pp.  401-422. 
""  The  Interpreter,  vol.  v,  pp.  245-265. 

"  The  Thinker,  October  and  November,  1893,  and  The  Biblical  World, 
August,  1898,  and  April,  1899. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  59 

A.  D,  53-57  on  the  supposition  of  its  authorship  by  PhiUp, 
and  Philip  probably  was  a  personal  disciple  of  Jesus  and  • 
would  not  have  written  Heb.  2.  3. 

13.  Harnack  made  a  sensation  a  few  years  ago'^^  by  de- 
claring his  belief  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  writ- 
ten largely  by  a  woman,  and  that  woman  Priscilla.  It  would 
be  interesting  if  it  could  be  proved  that  a  woman's  hand  had 
a  share  in  the  writing  of  the  New  Testament;  but  it  is 
doubtful  if  this  suggestion  by  Harnack  will  command  the 
allegiance  of  many  BibHcal  scholars,  even  when  Aquila's 
name  is  joined  with  that  of  Priscilla  as  co-author.  J.  PI. 
Moulton,  Schiele,  Peake,  and  Rendel  Harris  seem  attracted 
by  it.  Harnack  gives  as  his  reasons  for  making  this  sugges- 
tion :  ( I )  Priscilla  was  a  very  intellectual  woman,  and  evi-  7 
dently  of  great  influence  in  the  early  Christian  Church, 
(2)  She  was  a  friend  of  Paul  and  of  Timothy ;  and  Paul  ad- 
dresses her  as  his  "coworker."  (3)  She  belonged  to  the 
second  or  outer  circle  of  believers,  not  to  the  personal  dis- 
ciples of  the  Lord,  (4)  Such  passages  as  4.  i  and  10.  32  ||  y 
and  10.  24,  25  would  be  appropriate  from  Priscilla  to  the  I 
close  circle  of  Christian  friends  meeting  in  her  house. 
These  are  rather  precarious  grounds  for  any  sure  conclusion 
and  we  are  disposed  to  doubt  whether  either  Priscilla  or  her 
husband  had  sufficient  culture  to  compose  this  epistle,  and 

we  are  disposed  to  question  whether  any  woman  in  the 
PauHne  circle  would  either  have  assumed  or  have  been 
granted  such  a  position  of  authority  in  the  church  as  the 
author  of  this  epistle  held. 

14.  Barnabas.  This  is  a  more  likely  suggestion.  At  least 
better  reasons  can  be  given  for  holding  it.  (i)  Barnabas 
was  a  Jew  and  in  perfect  sympathy  and  in  the  best  of  stand- 
ing with  his  race.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  con- 
siderable wealth,  and  that  probably  insured  his  liberal  edu- 


'*  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  1900. 


6o  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

cation.  We  know  that  he  was  an  exceptionally  broad- 
minded  man,  a  man  of  liberal  views  and  wide  sympathies. 
(2)  Barnabas  was  a  Levite,  and  therefore  because  of  his 
professional  duties  would  be  especially  interested  in  the 
whole  of  the  temple  ritual.  The  argument  of  the  main  por- 
tion of  this  epistle  has  to  do  with  the  forms  of  the  temple 
worship.  It  is  such  an  argument  as  a  Christian  Levite 
would  be  most  likely  to  make.  The  only  occurrence  of  the 
word  "Levitical,"  AevecriKo^,  in  the  New  Testament  is  in 
Heb.  7.  II,  and  the  only  New  Testament  references  to  the 
Old  Testament  Levi  as  an  individual  are  in  Heb.  7.  5,  9. 
Barnabas,  the  Levite,  would  be  as  likely  as  any  one  to  be 
interested  in  Levi  and  the  Levitical  priesthood. 

(3.)  Barnabas  would  be  familiar  with  the  Psalms.  It 
was  a  part  of  the  duty  of  the  Levites  to  chant  the  Psalms 
in  the  temple  courts.  Nearly  half  of  the  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
are  taken  from  the  Psalms.  The  relative  proportion  of  these 
quotations  is  four  times  as  great  as  in  the  writings  of  Paul, 
and  eight  times  as  great  as  in  the  writings  of  Luke  or  any 
other  writer  in  the  New  Testament.  (4)  Barnabas  was  a 
Hellenist  Jew  and  a  native  of  Cyprus.  As  such  he  might 
be  expected  to  be  able  to  write  good  Greek  and  also  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Philo,  since  Cyprus  was  on 
the  direct  line  of  communication  with  Alexandria.  (5) 
He  was  a  companion  of  Paul,  yet,  as  probably  the  older 
man  and  surely  as  the  older  Christian,  he  might  be  expected 
to  be  more  or  less  independent  of  Paul  in  his  theology,  as 
we  know  that  he  was  in  his  action.''^^ 

(6)  Barnabas  is  called  an  apostle,^"  and  evidently  was 
held  in  such  high  repute  that  the  writing  of  this  epistle 
would  not  have  seemed  incongruous  in  him.  He  seems  to 
have  been  the  most  influential  Hellenistic  Christian  in  the 


'Gal.  2.  13,  14;  Acts  15.  39.  "o  Acts  14.  14. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  6i 

early  church ;  and  he  was  delegated  to  superintend  the  Chris- 
tian work  in  Antioch  just  as  Peter  and  John  were  sent  down 
to  look  after  things  in  Samaria.  It  was  apostolic  super- 
vision in  both  cases.  We  speak  of  the  apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, Paul;  but  Paul  spoke  of  the  apostles  to  the  Gentiles, 
including  Barnabas  with  himself,  "Jan^^s  and  Cephas  and 
John,  .  .  .  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands 
of  fellowship,  that  we  should  go  unto  the  Gentiles"  (Gal. 
2.9).  As  an  apostle,  ranking  with  James  and  Peter  and 
John  and  Paul  in  the  esteem  of  the  early  church,  he  could 
and  would  address  the  church  with  all  the  authority  assumed 
by  the  author  of  this  epistle. 

(7)  Barnabas  was  called  a  son  of  consolation,  or  of  ex- 
hortation,^!  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  he  has  affixed 
his  signature  to  this  epistle  when  he  wrote  in  13.  22,  "But  I 
exhort  you,  brethren,  bear  with  the  word  of  exhortation." 
We  are  told  that  he  was  reminding  them  there  of  the  name 
which  they  themselves  had  given  him.  (8)  A  spurious 
Epistle  of  Barnabas  is  extant.  Its  existence,  it  has  been 
urged,  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  a  genuine  epistle  was 
known  to  have  come  from  his  pen  and,  since  it  had  been  lost 
to  sight,  this  one  had  been  written  to  take  its  place.  It  was 
the  lot  of  Barnabas  that  his  reputation  should  decrease  while 
that  of  Paul  should  increase.  It  would  be  in  line  with  that 
lot  in  other  respects  if  Barnabas  should  have  written  an 
epistle  which  later  years  perversely  came  to  ascribe  to  Paul. 
(9)  There  is  the  positive  testimony  of  Tertullian,  who  said, 
"There  exists  also  a  writing  entitled  to  the  Hebrews,  by 
Barnabas."82  Novatian,  in  the  third  century,  quotes  Heb. 
13.  15  as  from  the  writings  of  the  holy  Barnabas.^^  Aside 
from  the  mention  of  Paul  and  the  suggestion  of  Luke  as 


'^  Acts  4.  36.  "  De  Pudicitia,  xx. 

"Tractatus  Origenis  de  libris  S.  Scripturarum,  Heb.  13.  15,  quoted 
as  from  "sanctissimus  Barnabas."  Cf.  Zahn,  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p. 
310. 


62  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

the  translator  of  Paul,  these  are  the  only  testimonies  con- 
cerning authorship  which  we  can  quote  from  the  church 
Fathers. 

This  seems  like  a  comparatively  strong  case ;  and  it  com- 
mands the  suffrages  of  most  excellent  authorities,  such  as 
Blass,  Cameron,  Hefele,  Schmidt,  Twesten,  Ullmann,  Wiese- 
ler,  Maier,  Grau,  Heinrici,  Thiersch,  Renan,  Volkmar, 
Overbeck,  Ritschl,  Schultz,  Kubel,  Keil,  Zahn,  Weiss, 
Walker,  Salmon,  McClymont,  McGiffert,  Milligan,  Gardi- 
ner, Goodspeed,  Gregory,  Bartlet,  Barth,  and  Adeney.  The 
following  objections  seem  to  us  to  be  fatal  to  this  hypothe- 
sis: (i)  Barnabas  would  not  have  reckoned  himself  in  the 
second  generation  of  believers.  (2)  He  would  not  have 
been  likely  to  make  the  mistakes  in  the  description  of  the 
temple  and  its  service  which  are  found  in  this  epistle.  (3) 
He  was  too  well  known  in  the  church  for  his  name  to  have 
been  lost.  If  it  became  attached  to  another  spurious  and 
much  inferior  epistle,  why  should  it  not  have  remained  at- 
tached to  this  more  worthy  effort  ? 

15.  Apollos.  All  that  we  know  of  Apollos  we  learn  from 
the  description  given  of  him  in  Acts  18.  24-28  and  in  the 
references  made  to  him  by  Paul  in  i  Cor.  i.  12;  3.  4-6,  22; 
4.6;  16.12;  and  in  Tit.  3.13.  Apollos  came  to  Ephesus 
about  55  A.  D.,  and  there  was  instructed  by  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  in  the  Christian  faith  and  the  Pauline  theology. 
He  was  sent  to  Corinth  later  and  was  a  mighty  preacher  of 
the  new  truth.  Many  think  that  this  is  the  only  name  in  the 
New  Testament  which  all  the  facts  in  the  epistle  seem  to 
suit.  They  claim  that  all  the  conditions  of  the  problem 
are  satisfied  in  him. 

They  say:  (i)  He  was  a  Jew,  and  this  epistle  must  have 
been  written  by  a  Jew.  (2)  He  was  a  Hellenist  Jew,  and 
probably  was  unacquainted  with  the  ritual  worship  at  Jeru- 
salem. At  least  we  do  not  know  that  he  ever  was  in  the  city 
of  Jerusalem.   (3)  He  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  the  only  one 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  63 

who  is  expressly  stated  to  be  such  in  our  New  Testament. 
This  accounts  for  his  using  the  Codex  Alexandrinus,  and  for 
his  acquaintance  with  the  writings  of  Philo  and  the  other 
Alexandrian  books.  (4}^,We  are  expressly  told  that  he  was 
learned  in  the  Scriptiires.  The  author  of  this  epistle  is  at 
home  in  all  the  sacred  Book.  (sX-We  also  are  told  that  he 
was  an  eloquent  man,  an  attrdlctive  orator,  and  a  powerful 
reasoner,  and  that  he  convinced  the  Jews  to  whom  he  talked 
out  of  their  own  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  This 
scriptural  argument,  most  effective  when  addressed  to  Jews, 
and  the  oratorical  putting  of  it  are  in  evidence  in  this 
epistle.  (6).  Apollos  belonged  to  the  second  generation  of 
believers,  and  first  heard  of  the  Christ  through  tradition.  (7) 
He  was  acquainted  with  Paul,  and  a  friend  of  Timothy. 
(8)  At  Corinth,  he  was  recognized  as  an  independent  au- 
thority, together  with  Peter  and  Paul.  (9)  We  learn  that 
he  was  capable  of  boldness  of  tone  (Acts  18.26),  and  also 
of  modest  self-suppression  (i  Cor.  16.  12). 

Farrar  says,  "Had  Paul  and  Luke  deliberately  designed 
to  point  out  a  man  capable  of  writing  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, they  could  not  have  chosen  any  words  more  suitable 
to  such  an  object  than  those  by  which  they  actually  describe" 
Apollos.84  This  is  the  opinion  of  Luther,  Clericus,  Miiller, 
Ziegler,  Rothe,  Riehm,  Bunsen,  Schott,  Semler,  Bleek,  Tho- 
luck,  Credner,  Reuss,  Lange,  De  Wette,  De  Pressense, 
Norton,  Alford,  Farrar,  Selwyn,  Plumptre,  Moulton,  Schol- 
ten,  Hilgenfeld,  Guericke,  Feilmoser,  Osiander,  Heumann, 
Dindorf,  Liitterbeck,  Belser,  Schulze,  Klostermann,  Kurtz, 
Pfleiderer,  Liinemann.  Liinemann  is  so  confident  that  he 
speaks  of  this  hypothesis  as  "the  only  correct  one."  Resch 
has  suggested:  "Paul  laid  the  foundation;  the  author  of 
Hebrews  built  on  it,  not  with  wood  or  hay  or  stubble,  but 
with  gold,  silver,  precious   stones.     Should  it  have  been 


8*  Farrar,  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  p.  217. 


64  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Apollos  to  whom  we  owe  this  epistle,  then  would  that  saying 
be  true :  Paul  planted,  Apollos  watered."*^ 

The  chief  objections  to  this  suggestion  are:  (l)'' Luther 
was  the  first  man  ever  to  affirm  it,  as  far  as  we' know.  In 
1522  Luther  said  that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews was  unknown,  while  he  was  sure  that  Paul  could  not 
have  written  certain  passages  in  it.  Later  he  expressed  him- 
self more  doubtfully  concerning  the  author,  "quisquis  est, 
sive  Paulus  sive,  ut  ego  arbitror,  Apollo."  Later  still,  in 
1537,  he  speaks  more  decisively,  "This  Apollos  was  a  man 
of  great  intelligence.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  indeed 
his."^^  There  is  no  hint  of  the  authorship  by  Apollos  to  be 
found  in  all  antiquity.  If  Apollos  had  written  the  epistle, 
surely  some  one  would  have  known  it  in  the  beginning  and 
have  recorded  the  fact,  or  the  tradition  would  have  been 
preserved  in  some  quarter  and  some  mention  would  have 
been  made  of  it  by  some  one  before  the  time  of  Martin 
Luther.  (j?.)^'Apollos  learned  the  gospel  from  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,"and  not,  like  the  author  of  this  epistle,  from  those 
who  had  heard  the  Lord.  (3.)  Apollos  seems  to  have  been  of 
about  the  same  age  with  Paul  and  the  first  generation  of 
believers.  The  writer  of  this  epistle  ranks  himself  in  the 
second  generation  of  believers  and  is  more  likely  to  have 
been  of  the  age  of  Timothy.  (4)-  If  the  epistle  is  addressed 
to  the  Hebrews  either  of  Jerusalem  or  of  Palestine,  what 
reason  have  we  to  think  that  Apollos  ever  had  had  any  deal- 
ings with  them  or  would  assume  any  authority  in  address- 
ing them  or  would  ask  them  to  pray  that  he  might  be  re- 
stored to  them,  since  he  never  had  belonged  to  them  in  any 
way? 

These  may  not  seem  very  conclusive  objections,  but  they 
serve  to  raise  some  serious  questionings  in  our  mind. 
Apollos  would  seem  to  be  the  most  likely  author  of  any 

»  Resch,  Paulinismus,  S.  506. 

«•  Luther,  Werke,  Bd.  xviii,  S.  181. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  65 

whose  name  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  Barnabas  would 
come  next  in  the  order  of  probability.  However,  objections 
can  be  made  to  both  these  men ;  and  we  cannot  therefore  be 
at  all  certain  of  either  of  them.  There  is  but  one  other  con- 
clusion left  for  us. 

16.  The  author  is  unknown  and  in  all  probability  always 
will  remain  so.  This  is  the  opinion  of  Eichhorn,  Seyffarth, 
Neudecker,  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Grimm,  Kluge,  Lipsius, 
Ewald,  Baur,  Von  Soden,  Holtzmann,  Hausrath,  KostHn, 
Jiilicher,  Moll,  Weizsacker,  Menegoz,  Moffatt,  Rendall, 
Dods,  W.  R.  Smith,  Schaff,  Westcott,  Vaughan,  Davidson, 
and  Bruce.  McGiffert  concludes :  "Since  there  are  no  per- 
sonal references  which  can  furnish  a  clue  to  the  identity  of 
the  author,  we  shall  do  well  to  content  ourselves  with  a  non 

Of  some  things  concerning  the  author  we  feel  sure.  ( i ) 
He  was  a  Jew  and  a  Hellenist  Jew.  (2)  He  was  neither 
resident  in  Palestine  nor  acquainted  with  the  actual  ritual 
worship  in  the  temple.  (3)  He  knew  his  Greek  Bible  thor- 
oughly, but  probably  was  not  familiar  with  the  Hebrew 
original.  (4)  He  had  read  the  Alexandrian  Jewish  books, 
and  may  have  lived  in  Alexandria  and  may  have  been  a 
pupil  of  Philo.  (5)  He  was  a  friend  of  Timothy  and  was 
in  sympathy  with  the  Pauline  type  of  theology.  (6)  He 
was  a  man  with  the  oratorical  temperament,  capable  of  in- 
dependent thinking,  and  more  radical  in  his  conclusions  as 
to  the  future  of  Judaism  and  of  Christianity  than  even  Paul 
himself.  (7)  He  was  a  Christian  prophet,  speaking  with 
the  authority  of  Divine  truth.  The  ages  have  vindicated 
every  prediction  he  made  and  substantiated  his  every  state- 
ment of  fact. 

He  is  The  Great  Unknown  of  the  New  Testament.  His 
epistle  ranks  with  the  best  in  the  book.     It  is  worthy  of 


8^  McGiffert,  The  Apostolic  Age,  p.  481. 


66  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Paul  or  John  or  Peter  or  James.  It  has  characteristics,  how- 
ever, which  seem  to  make  it  impossible  for  any  of  these  men 
to  have  written  it.  We  have  another  hand  of  genius  and 
heart  of  flame  in  this  author.  As  Thiersch  has  said:  "If 
it  should  be  found  that  a  noble  picture,  which  had  been 
attributed  to  Raphael,  was  not  by  that  artist,  there  would 
not  be  one  masterpiece  the  less,  but  one  great  master  the 
more." 

There  is  a  sense  of  disappointment  in  deciding  that  the 
author  of  so  great  an  epistle  must  remain  for  us  anonymous. 
We  would  like  to  acknowledge  our  indebtedness  to  him  and 
put  the  laurel  wreath  of  our  gratitude  and  appreciation  upon 
his  brow ;  but  it  is  the  one  exhortation  of  his  epistle  that  we 
look  away  from  all  other  inferior  and  human  helpers  to 
Jesus,  the  all-mighty  to  save.  If  we  knew  his  name,  he  would 
beg  of  us  to  give  all  our  praise  and  our  gratitude  to  Him 
who  had  inherited  the  more  excellent  name,  Jesus  the  all- 
sufficient  Source  of  salvation  and  strength.  His  name  is 
hidden  from  us,  that  we  may  give  all  honor  to  the  Master  for 
the  glory  of  whose  name  alone  he  wrote. 

It  is  one  of  the  traditions  of  New  England  history  that 
during  King  Philip's  War,  at  Hadley  in  the  Connecticut  val- 
ley, on  the  first  day  of  September,  1675,  the  inhabitants  were 
all  gathered  in  the  church  and  were  celebrating  a  fast  when 
the  war-whoops  of  the  Indians  resounded  on  every  side  and 
the  service  broke  up  in  confusion.  The  settlers  salHed  forth 
to  the  defense  of  their  homes,  but  the  enemy  seemed  to  be 
stronger  than  they  and  a  panic  soon  ensued.  Then  a  stranger 
of  venerable  aspect  with  long  and  flowing  beard  suddenly 
appeared  in  their  midst.  He  spoke  with  authority  and  ral- 
lied their  forces  and  charged  the  foe  and  put  him  to  flight. 
When  the  settlers  returned  from  the  pursuit  the  stranger 
had  disappeared.  They  did  not  know  whence  he  came  or 
whither  he  had  gone ;  and  some  said  that  an  angel  had  been 
sent  from  God  for  their  deliverance. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  67 

It  must  have  been  in  some  such  way  that  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  first  made  its  appearance  in  the  Hebrew 
Church.  It  was  a  time  of  panic  and  discouragement  and 
fear.  Some  thought  the  battle  was  going  against  the  Chris- 
tians and  to  some  it  seemed  that  the  day  already  was  lost. 
Suddenly  this  epistle  appeared  in  their  midst.  It  spoke 
with  authority,  and  their  forces  were  rallied  and  their  cour- 
age revived.  The  battle  was  renewed  and  the  banner  of 
the  cross  was  carried  to  victory. 

The  parallel  is  even  more  striking  in  our  day.  They  knew 
whence  this  lordly  messenger  came.  We  do  not.  Neither 
do  we  know  whither  he  has  gone.  He  is  to  us  a  mysterious 
stranger,  a  Melchizedek,  without  father,  without  mother, 
without  posterity.  His  words  are  as  the  words  of  an  angel 
sent  directly  from  heaven  for  our  deliverance.  Our  eyes  are 
holden  that  we  may  not  see  his  face;  but  we  hear  his  voice 
and  are  glad. 

We  have  not  finished  with  the  mysteries  connected  with 
the  origin  of  this  epistle.  We  do  not  know  who  wrote  it, 
and  we  do  not  know  to  whom  it  was  written. 

VIII.  To  Whom  Was  the  Epistle  Written  ? 

As  many  answers  have  been  made  to  this  question  as  to 
the  question  of  authorship.  There  seems  to  be  the  same  de- 
gree of  uncertainty  among  the  various  scholars  upon  both 
points.  We  Ust  some  of  their  suggestions  and  add  the  names 
of  the  authorities  adhering  to  each:  i.  The  churches  of  Asia 
Minor.  Bengel,  Cramer,  Jacobus,  Schmidt.  2.  The  churches 
of  Galatia.  Storr  and  Miinster.  3.  The  church  at  Laodicea. 
Stein.  4.  The  church  at  Ephesus.  Roth.  5.  The  church  in 
Lycaonia.  Credner.  6.  The  Jewish  Christians  of  the  Pau- 
line field.  Wall,  Woll.  7.  The  Jewish  Christians  of  Mace- 
donia. Noesselt,  Semler.  8.  The  church  at  Corinth.  Weber. 
Mack.  9.  The  church  at  Antioch.  Bohme,  Hofmann,  Ren- 
dall.      10.     The    church    in    Cyprus.      Walker.      11.    The 


68  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

churches  in  Spain.  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  Ludwig.  12. 'The 
church  at  Alexandria.  Ullmann,  Wieseler,  Kostlin,  Bunsen, 
Hilgenfeld,  Schneckenburger,  Schleiermacher,  Volkmar, 
Ritschl,  Reuss,  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Plumptre,  David- 
son. 13.  The  church  at  Rome.  Wetstein,  Eichhorn,  Schulz, 
Baur,  Holtzmann,  Kurtz,  Schenkel,  Renan,  Reville,  Man- 
gold, Zahn,  Von  Soden,  Pfleiderer,  Jiilicher,  Harnack,  Al- 
ford,  Milligan,  Moffatt,  Goodspeed,  Peake.  14.  There  has 
been  a  tendency  among  some  recent  writers  to  set  aside  the 
tradition  that  the  epistle  was  written  to  the  Hebrews,  and  to 
hold  that  it  was  written  to  Gentiles.  Schiirer,  Jiilicher, 
Weizsacker,  Pfleiderer,  Von  Soden,  McGiffert,  and  Bacon 
represent  this  view.  The  whole  theory  is,  as  Westcott  says, 
nothing  more  than  "an  ingenious  paradox."^^  Ramsay 
agrees,  'Tt  would  be  difficult  to  find  an  opinion  so  clearly 
paradoxical,  so  obviously  opposed  to  the  whole  weight  of 
evidence,  so  entirely  founded  on  strained  misinterpretation 
of  a  few  passages  and  on  the  ignoring  of  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  document."*^  15,  Euthalius  said  that  the  epistle 
was  written  to  all  believing  Jews.  Baumgarten,  Heinrichs, 
Schwegler  agree.  Reuss  thinks  that  we  have  here  not  so 
much  a  letter  as  a  theological  treatise  intended  for  the  whole 
church.  That  the  epistle  is  not  primarily  an  encyclical  is 
apparent,  however,  from  more  than  one  passage  in  which 
some  particular  body  of  believers  is  definitely  addressed.  In 
5.  II,  12  the  author  rebukes  them  for  their  slow  progress 
in  spiritual  things.  He  thinks  they  ought  to  know  more 
than  they  do,  having  been  converted  as  long  as  they  have. 
In  10.  34  he  praises  them  for  their  brotherly  behavior  in  the 
past  and  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  they  had  maintained.  In 
12.  4  he  declares  that  there  have  been  no  martyrs  among  them 
as  yet.  In  13.  7  he  mentions  the  fact  that  some  of  their 
leaders  had  died.    He  evidently  is  well  acquainted  with  their 

*8  Westcott,  Commentary  on  Hebrews,  p.  xxxv. 
»» Expositor,  Fifth  Series,  vol.  ix,  p.  405. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  69 

circumstances  and  with  their  spiritual  condition.  In  13.  23 
he  promises  to  visit  them  soon.  Therefore  we  decide  that 
the  epistle  must  have  been  written  to  some  particular  church 
or  closely  related  group  of  churches.  The  author  addresses, 
not  all  Hebrews,  but  the  Hebrews  in  some  particular  place. 
16.  The  traditional  destination  of  the  epistle  has  been  the 
church  at  Jerusalem  or  this  church  with  the  nearly  related 
churches  of  Judaea  or  Palestine.  The  reasons  advanced  for 
this  conclusion  are  as  follows:  (iJ,^The  Gentiles  are  abso- 
lutely ignored  in  this  epistle.  We  would  judge  from  the 
epistle  itself  that  there  were  Hebrews  alone  in  the  church 
to  which  it  was  addressed.  If  any  considerable  section  of  it 
had  been  composed  of  Gentiles,  they  surely  would  have  been 
mentioned  at  some  time  in  the  course  of  the  argument.  Since 
all  reference  to  them  is  omitted,  the  natural  inference  is  that 
they  were  not  in  existence.  Now,  the  church  in  Jerusalem, 
or  the  churches  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Jerusalem  in 
Judaea  or  Palestine,  were  the  only  Christian  churches  in 
which  there  was  an  entirely  Jewish  membership.  Anywhere 
else  in  the  Christian  world  the  Gentiles  would  be  more  or 
less  in  evidence.  (2)  The  frequent  and  detailed  references 
to  the  Jewish  temple  worship  would  be  most  appropriate 
and  most  readily  appreciated  at  Jerusalem  and  in  Palestine, 
for  there  that  worship  was  best  known  and  continually  seen. 
(3)  The  exhortation  to  hospitality  would  be  most  appro- 
priate at  Jerusalem  (13.2).  Every  year  the  Jews  came  up 
from  every  part  of  the  world  to  the  celebration  of  the  great 
feasts,  and  there  must  have  been  abundant  opportunity  for 
the  exercise  of  hospitaHty  on  these  occasions.  No  other 
church  had  anything  like  such  opportunities.  The  poorest 
of  the  Christians  as  well  as  the  poorest  of  the  Jews  in  Jeru- 
salem had  multiplied  occasions  for  generosity  and  hospitality 
and  the  cuUivation  of  friendly  relations  with  their  brethren 
of  all  the  lands.  (4)  The  whole  trend  of  the  exhortation 
in  this  epistle  seeifis  most  appropriate  here.     The  danger 


70  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

against  which  the  author  warns  is  the  danger  of  discourage- 
ment in  the  Christian  faith  and  consequent  return  to  the 
Jewish  worship.  The  Christians  at  Jerusalem  had  a  two- 
fold reason  for  disappointment.  (a)/'They  had  hoped  that 
their  brethren  would  be  converted  and  that  all  the  Jews 
would  join  them  in  their  adherence  to  the  Christian  faith. 
On  the  contrary,  the  large  majority  of  their  countrymen 
were  becoming  more  and  more  antagonistic.  They  were 
farther  than  ever  from  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  and 
they  regarded  the  Christians  as  renegades  and  apostates. 
It  began  to  look  as  if  the  Jewish  nation  were  hopelessly 
alienated  from  any  possibiHty  of  evangelization.  The  Chris- 
tians had  prayed  for  the  regeneration  of  all  of  their  people, 
but  now  they  began  to  despair  of  any  such  prospect  in  the 
immediate  future.  Then  (b)  they  had  hoped  that  Jesus 
would  return  to  set  up  the  kingdom  in  power.  They  had 
looked  for  him  continually,  but  a  whole  generation  had 
passed  away  and  the  Master  did  not  come.  They  had  begun 
to  doubt  whether  he  would  come  at  all  in  their  Hfetime. 
They  had  hoped  that  he  would  redeem  Israel,  but  now  it 
looked  as  if  Israel  were  drifting  beyond  all  reasonable  ex- 
pectation of  redemption.  The  clouds  of  God's  wrath  were 
gathering  upon  the  horizon.  A  crisis  was  approaching,  and 
the  whole  outlook  seemed  an  utterly  gloomy  one.  The  temp- 
tation was  to  return  to  the  consolation  of  their  early  faith. 
In  Jerusalem  there  was  all  the  fascination  of  the  temple 
ritual  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  all  their  Hfe  and 
from  which  they  seemed  likely  to  be  excommunicated  by 
their  fanatical  countrymen.  They  missed  these  associations 
of  their  early  days.  They  had  adopted  a  new  interpretation 
of  Scripture.  They  had  abandoned  their  old  national  hopes. 
They  had  no  temple  and  no  priesthood  and  no  altars  of  their 
own.  There  was  the  constant  temptation  to  go  back  to  the 
popular  side,  to  adopt  again  the  old  forms  of  worship,  and  to 
be  satisfied  with  them  even  as  their  fathers  had  been.    This 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  71 

temptation  was  strongest  where  the  Jews  were  in  closest 
contact  with  the  temple  worship  and  the  annual  feasts. 
The  Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem,  therefore,  was  in  great- 
est need  of  the  consolations  and  the  exhortations  of  this 
epistle.  (5) 'It  is  a  strange  fact  that  no  one  of  the  early- 
Christian  churches  claims  this  epistle.  It  would  be  easier  to 
explain  the  lack  of  such  a  claim  at  Jerusalem  than  anywhere 
else  in  the  Christian  world.  We  know  that  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem was  destroyed  and  that  the  Christian  Church  there 
was  dispersed  and  it  was  not  reorganized  for  some  time. 
There  was  ample  opportunity,  therefore,  for  this  epistle  to 
be  lost  and  for  the  tradition  of  its  authorship  to  disappear. 
This  would  not  be  so  likely  to  happen  at  Alexandria  or 
Rome  or  Ephesus  or  any  other  church  where  the  organiza- 
tion was  continuous  and  the  traditions  were  undisturbed 
through  the  generations. 

For  these  reasons  the  following  authorities  hold  the  tra- 
ditional view;  Liinemann,  Moll,  Weiss,  Godet,  Grimm, 
Hug,  De  Wette,  Ewald,  Tholuck,  Thiersch,  Delitzsch, 
Bleek,  Bisping,  Bartlet,  Keil,  Riehm,  Beyschlag,  Salmon, 
Schott,  Vaughan,  Davidson,  Westcott  and  Hort,  Findlay, 
Bruce.  Weiss  says  that  this  destination  of  the  epistle  is  the 
only  one  possible.^®  Davidson  says  that  this  opinion  was 
held  by  most  of  the  Fathers;  by  the  Alexandrian  theo- 
logians, by  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  The- 
ophylact,  and  others.^^  Delitzsch  says  that  it  was  the  unani- 
mous ancient  opinion  that  the  epistle  was  addressed  to 
Judc'ea.92 

The  ancient  Fathers  ought  to  be  as  likely  to  know  about 
the  destination  of  the  epistle  as  we  or  any  modern  critics. 
Yet  we  ask  ourselves  (i)  whether  any  Hellenist  Jew,  un- 
acquainted with  the  temple  worship,  would  have  ventured 

*"  Weiss,  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p.  29. 

'1  Davidson,  Introduction,  vol.  iii,  p.  267. 

"  Delitzsch,  Commentary,  vol.  i,  p.  2i. 


-^2  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

to  write  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem  about  these  things ;  and 
whether  he  could  ask  them  to  pray  that  he  might  be  restored 
to  them,  if  he  were  a  Hellenist  and  an  Alexandrian  and 
never  had  belonged  to  their  company;  and  (2)  whether  he 
could  imply  that  there  had  been  no  martyrdoms  among  them, 
when  Stephen  and  James  the  apostle  and  James  the  brother 
of  the  Lord  had  suffered  martyrdom  there;  and  (3)  whether 
he  could  address  them  as  those  to  whom  the  gospel  had  been 
preached  by  those  who  had  heard  the  Lord  when  there  must 
have  been  many  among  them  who  belonged  to  the  first 
generation  of  believers  and  had  received  the  gospel  from  the 
Lord's  own  mouth;  and  (4)  whether  the  suggestion  that 
they  had  suffered  persecution  and  imprisonment  but  now 
were  in  the  enjoyment  of  peace  ever  could  have  been  ap- 
plicable to  the  church  at  Jerusalem  and  in  Judaea;  and  (5) 
whether  the  Palestinian  churches  would  have  any  particu- 
lar interest  in  Timothy  or  Timothy  would  be  likely  to  hasten 
to  them  immediately  after  his  release  from  imprisonment; 
and  (6)  whether  the  charge  could  be  maintained  against 
them  that  they  had  produced  no  teachers,  when  the  first 
missionary  preaching  had  gone  out  into  all  parts  of  the 
world  from  their  cities;  and  (7)  whether  the  saints  in  Judaea 
were  not  notorious  rather  for  their  poverty  than  for  their 
hospitality,  objects  of  charity  rather  than  the  purveyors  of  it. 
These  are  all  pertinent  questionings,  and  they  suffice  to 
leave  a  doubt  in  our  mind  whether  there  can  be  any  cer- 
tainty as  to  the  destination  of  the  epistle.  The  whole  Chris- 
tian world  of  that  day  has  been  searched  for  a  likely  point 
of  reception  for  an  epistle  of  this  sort ;  and  the  multitude  of 
suggestions  concerning  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  none  of 
them  can  furnish  ground  for  any  exclusive  claim  and  there- 
fore there  can  be  no  certainty  in  holding  to  any  one  of  them. 
The  mystery  of  authorship  is  equaled  by  the  mystery  of 
destination.  To  these  two  mysteries  we  now  add  a  third. 
Where  was  this  epistle  written? 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  73 

IX.  Place  OF  Writing? 

The  only  clue  we  have  for  the  answering  of  this  question 
is  to  be  found  in  that  sentence  in  the  epistle  which  reads, 
"They  of  Italy  salute  you"  (13.24).  In  keeping  with  all 
the  other  difficulties  attending  the  questions  of  Introduction 
in  connection  with  this  epistle,  this  passage  is  capable  of  two 
interpretations.  It  may  mean  that  the  author  was  in  Italy 
and  sent  greetings  from  the  Christians  Hving  there  to  the 
Christians  in  Jerusalem  or  Alexandria  or  Ephesus,  or  what- 
ever city  or  church  outside  of  Italy  he  may  have  addressed. 
Or  it  may  mean  that  the  author  was  in  Alexandria  or 
Ephesus  or  Corinth  or  some  city  outside  of  Italy,  and  that 
he  was  writing  to  Rome  or  some  city  inside  of  Italy  and 
so  sent  greetings  from  their  compatriots  resident  with 
him,  "The  Italian  colony  in  this  place  sends  greetings 
home." 

We  think  the  former  alternative  the  more  probable.  We 
think  that  Paul  was  dead  and  Peter  was  dead  and  Timothy 
had  been  in  prison  when  this  epistle  was  written.  Its  author 
was  waiting  in  some  city  in  Italy  for  Timothy  to  join  him; 
and  then  the  two  would  return  together  to  some  former 
field  of  labor  where  both  were  well  known.  In  the  mean- 
time this  epistle  is  sent  ahead  of  them  to  be  a  consolation  and 
a  foretaste  of  their  personal  exhortations  and  preaching. 

X.  Time  of  Writing 

There  is  a  sufficient  variety  of  opinion  among  the  critics 
at  this  point  also ;  but  it  seems  to  us  that  we  can  come  nearer 
a  sure  conclusion  here  than  at  any  point  we  have  discussed 
thus  far.     i.  If  the  epistle  shows  that  the  author  has  read    V 
the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Corinthians,  then  his 
own  epistle  must  have  been  written  later  than  these,  later      %) 
than  A.  D.  59.    2.  The  epistle  was  written  after  Timothy's    I 
imprisonment;  and  although  we  know  nothing  at  all  about    ' 


74 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 


this,  it  seems  probable  that  it  was  after  Paul's  martyrdom 
and  the  close  of  the  history  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  after  A.  D. 
64.  3.  The  epistle  was  written  before  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  and  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  70.  We  come 
to  this  conclusion  upon  the  basis  of  the  statements  made  in 
the  epistle  itself,  (i)  The  author  says  that  Jesus,  if  he 
were  upon  the  earth,  would  not  be  a  priest,  seeing  there  are 
those  who  offer  the  gifts  according  to  the  law  (8.4).  He 
surely  would  not  make  such  a  statement  unless  the  sacrifices 
were  still  going  on.  (2)  The  argument  of  10.  1-4  depends 
upon  the  fact  of  the  continual  repetition  of  the  sacrifices. 
They  are  ineffective,  and  therefore  they  have  to  be  offered 
again  and  again.  Any  Christian  writing  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  would  have  said:  *'God  himself  has  pro- 
nounced them  ineffective  by  their  abolishing.  His  provi- 
dence has  set  them  aside.  They  have  now  ceased  to  be 
offered;  and  you  can  no  longer  put  your  trust  in  them." 
(3)  The  appeal  made  in  the  eleventh  chapter  to  faith  in  the 
unseen  has  double  force  if  the  sacrificial  system  was  still  in 
existence,  and  all  the  temple  worship  was  visible  and  clamor- 
ing for  their  faithful  observance,  and  they  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  return  to  it  at  any  time  and  put  their  confidence 
in  its  historically  established  and  continuously  apparent  or- 
dinances of  salvation.  (4)  The  appeal  of  the  last  chapter 
gains  greatly  in  significance  if  it  is  a  last  call  to  escape  from 
the  doomed  City  of  Destruction  to  the  only  sure  refuge 
without  the  walls.  (5)  The  whole  argument  of  the  epistle 
becomes  immeasurably  pathetic  if  it  is  addressed  to  Jews 
at  the  very  crisis  of  their  national  history  when  they  were 
torn  between  the  conflicting  claims  of  their  patriotism  and 
their  Christian  faith.  (6)  The  parallel  in  3. 9  and  3.  17 
suggests  this  date.  The  IsraeHtes  had  seen  the  mighty 
works  of  God  for  forty  years  in  the  wilderness;  and  now 
the  Hebrews  had  seen  the  mighty  works  of  the  new  dis- 
pensation for  forty  years  since  the  crucifixion  and  the  resur- 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  75 

rection  and  Pentecost.     Let  them  beware,  for  the  day  of 
judgment  was  again  at  hand. 

4.  The  epistle  could  not  have  been  written  long  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end  of  the  temple  worship. 
For  (i)  some  were  becoming  impatient  at  the  long  delay 
of  the  Lord's  second  coming  (10.36,  37).  (2)  Some  were 
showing  indications  of  weakness  and  tendencies  to  back- 
sliding (12.  12).  (3)  The  church  had  lived  through  a  pe- 
riod of  persecution,  and  there  had  been  time  for  some  of  its 
leaders  to  have  passed  away  (10.32-34;  13.7).  (4)  The 
fate  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  seemed  so  uncertain  that  the 
author  reminds  them  of  the  city  that  hath  foundations  and 
that  abideth  for  evermore  (11.  10;  13.  14).  (5)  The  author 
prophesies  that  the  old  covenant  and  its  ordinances  are  now 
nigh  to  vanishing  away  (8.  13). 

We  think,  therefore,  that  the  epistle  was  written  some  time 
in  the  six  years  between  A.  D.  64  and  70,  and  the  following 
authorities  would  agree  with  this  decision :  Wieseler,  Riehm, 
Godet,  Kurtz,  Keil,  Kiibel,  Ewald,  Scholten,  Tholuck,  Hil- 
genfeld,  Liinemann,  Clemen,  Beyschlag,  Earth,  Bleek,  Weiss, 
Kenan,  Grimm,  Menegoz,  Milligan,  Meyer,  Ayles,  Kay, 
Stuart,  Davidson,  Kendall,  Roberts,  Westcott,  Vaughan, 
Farrar,  Adeney,  Findlay,  Stevens,  Sanday,  Schaff.  Others 
are  disposed  to  put  it  at  somewhat  earlier  date ;  as  Salmon, 
Ramsay,  Thiersch,  Lardner,  Lewis,  Lindsay,  Lange,  Holtz- 
heuer,  Ebrard,  Bartlet,  Belser,  Bullock,  De  Wette,  Mill  and 
Moll.  Others  put  it  at  a  later  date,  as  Zahn,  Jiilicher,  Mc- 
Giffert,  Von  Soden,  Weizsacker,  Wrede,  Reville,  Rovers, 
Ropes,  Bacon,  Cone,  Haring,  Hollman,  Harnack,  Good- 
speed,  Bousset,  Schenkel,  and  Holtzmann  about  A.  D.  80-90, 
and  Pfleiderer,  Volkmar,  Briickner,  Hausrath,  and  Keim 
about  A.  D.  115-118.  The  reasons  we  have  given  seem  to 
us  sufficient  to  place  the  date  of  composition  somewhere  in 
the  six  years  preceding  the  overthrow  of  the  temple  wor- 
ship and  of  the  Jewish  state  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 


76  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

XL  Purpose  of  Writing 

The  purpose  of  the  epistle  has  been  made  plain.  It  is  to 
strengthen  the  faith  and  renew  the  courage  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  by  showing  the  superiority  of  Christianity  to 
Judaism  at  every  point.  The  author  shows  that  Jesus  is 
superior  to  the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation  (i.  1-4), 
and  superior  to  the  angels  (i.  5-2.  18),  and  superior  to  Moses 
(chapter  3),  and  superior  to  Joshua  (chapter  4),  and  su- 
perior to  Aaron  (chapters  5-10).  The  new  covenant  is 
shown  to  be  a  better  covenant  than  the  old.  The  new  dis- 
pensation offers  the  glorious  consummation  of  all  their  hopes. 

Were  they  attached  to  the  old  religious  forms?  Were 
they  proud  of  the  past  history  of  their  race?  Did  the  en- 
treaties and  the  threats  of  their  relatives  and  their  friends 
tempt  some  of  them  to  backsliding?  The  best  remedy  for 
that  was  to  look  unto  Jesus  and  to  follow  him  outside  of  the 
camp,  to  break  with  the  old  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and 
with  the  old  delusive  though  fondly  cherished  national  hopes, 
and  if  need  be  with  the  church  of  their  fathers  and  all  its 
sacrificial  ritual  and  worship  in  the  clear  conviction  that 
they  had  a  better  hope  and  a  better  priest  and  a  better  sacri- 
fice and  a  better  inheritance  in  Christ. 

Here  is  a  radicaHsm  whose  best  warrant  can  be  found  in 
the  sanction  of  history.  A  divine  inspiration  was  upon  this 
Jew  enabUng  him  to  see  more  clearly  than  any  other  writer 
in  the  New  Testament  that  Judaism  finally  and  forever  was 
doomed  and  that  Christianity  was  its  eternally  predestined 
and,  therefore,  was  to  be  its  eternally  triumphing,  suc- 
cessor and  consummation.  The  man  Jesus  had  learned 
obedience  through  suffering,  but  now  he  was  the  glorified 
Victor  and  Consummator  of  all  their  hopes.  Let  them  look 
unto  him,  as  the  example  of  faith  (11.  1-12.  2),  and  of  hope 
(12.  3-29),  and  of  love  (chapter  13). 

If  the  authorship  of  this  epistle  is  uncertain,  its  inspiration 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS  ^ 

is  indisputable.  If  we  do  not  know  from  what  place  it  was 
written,  we  know  that  it  brings  us  a  message  from  heaven. 
If  we  do  not  know  to  whom  it  was  first  addressed,  we  know 
that  it  addresses  our  own  hearts  and  speaks  to  our  own 
needs.  The  uncertainties  in  matters  of  Introduction  do  not 
increase  the  difficulties  of  interpretation  in  the  least.  We 
believe  that  its  message  for  us  can  be  made  clear  at  every 
point. 

XII.  Authorities  for  the  Text  of  the  Epistle 

Three  uncial  manuscripts  have  a  practically  complete 
text  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews:  Sinaiticus  (fourth  cen- 
tury), Alexandrinus  (fifth  century),  and  Claromontanus 
(sixth  century).  These  three  manuscripts  (J^,  A,  D) 
are  our  primary  authorities  for  the  text.  Vaticanus  (B) 
would  rank  with  them  if  it  were  complete,  but  it  ends  at 
9.  14.  Up  to  that  point  its  testimony  is  as  valuable  as  any 
we  have,  and  it  is  now  supplemented  by  the  fragments  of 
text  found  in  the  recently  discovered  Oxyrhynchus  papyrus 
657,  which  belongs  to  the  same  early  date  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. This  papyrus  contains  Heb.  2.14-5.5;  10.  8-1 1. 13; 
II.  28-12.  17. 

XIII.  Outline  of  the  Epistle 

I.  Jesus  introduced,  i.  1-4.  II.  A  mosaic  of  quota- 
tions, setting  forth  the  dignity  of  Jesus,  1.5-14.  III. 
An  exhortation,  2.  1-4.  IV.  Jesus  the  hope  of  the  race, 
2.5-18.  (i)  The  Dignity  and  Destiny  of  Man,  2.5-8;  (2) 
fulfilled  in  Jesus,  2.  9;  (3)  who  was  perfected  through  suf- 
fering, 2.  10;  and  (4)  is  one  with  us,  2.  11-18.  V.  Jesus 
greater  than  Moses,  3.  1-6.  VI.  A  Second  Exhortation, 
3.7-4.16.  (i)  Harden  not  your  hearts,  3.7-19,  but  (2) 
strive  to  enter  into  God's  rest,  4.  i-ii,  for  (3)  God  will 
know  all  about  you,  4.  12,  13;  and  (4)  Jesus  sympathizes 
and  will  help,  4.  14-16.    VII.  Preliminary  Statements  Con- 


78  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

cerning  the  Highpriesthood  of  Jesus,  5. 1-14.  i.  Every  high 
priest  must  be  (i)  sympathetic,  5.1-3,  and  (2)  called  of 
God,  5.4.  2.  Jesus  was  (i)  called,  5.5,  6,  and  (2)  is  sym- 
pathetic, 5.  7-9.  3.  He  belongs  to  the  Melchizedekian  priest- 
hood, 5.  10.  4.  This  doctrine  is  solid  food,  5.  11-14.  VHI. 
Renewed  Exhortations,  6.  1-20.  i.  Press  on  to  blessing, 
not  burning,  6.  1-8,  and  2.  Exercise  your  former  diligence, 

6.  9-20,  (i)  to  inherit  the  promise,  6.  9-12,  (2)  confirmed  by 
God's  oath,  6.  13-20.    IX.  Jesus,  Our  Highpriest,  7.  i-io.  18. 

1.  His  type,  Melchizedek,  7.  i-io,   (i)   abides  continually, 

7.  1-3,  and  (2)  is  greater  than  Abraham  and  Levi,  7. 4-10. 

2.  He  abides,  perfects,  and  supersedes,  7.  11-25,  because  3. 
He  himself  is  perfected,  7.  26-28,  and  therefore,  4.  He  has 
a  more  excellent  ministry,  8.  1-6,  (i)  with  a  better  cove- 
nant, 8.  7-13,  (2)  admitting  to  the  Holy  of  holies,  9,  i-io, 
(3)  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  9.  11-22,  (4)  through  the 
offering  of  himself,  9.  23-28,  (5)  as  the  one  sufficient  sacri- 
fice, 10.  1-18.  X.  Other  Exhortations,  10.  19-39.  Let  us  (i) 
enter  in,  10.  19-25,  and  (2)  not  suffer  loss,  10.  26-31,  but 
(3)  be  patient  in  faith,  10.  32-39.  XL  The  Triumphs  of 
Faith,  climaxing  in  Jesus,  11.  1-12.  3.  XIL  Appended  Ex- 
hortations, 12.  4-13.  19.  I.  Endure  chastening,  12.  4-13.  2. 
Follow  peace  and  sanctification,  12.  14-17.  3.  Have  grace 
equal  to  your  privileges,  12.  18-29.  4-  Love  rightly,  13.  1-15, 
(i)  the  brethren,  13.  i,  (2)  strangers,  13.2,  (3)  the  pris- 
oners, 13.  3,  (4)  married  mates,  13,  4,  (5)  not  money,  13.  5. 
6,  (6)  the  church  leaders,  13.  7,  (7)  Jesus  Christ,  the  out- 
cast, 13.  8-15.  5.  Do  good,  13.  16.  6.  Be  obedient,  13.  17.  7. 
Pray  for  us,  13.  18-19.  XIII.  Benediction,  13.  20,  21.  XIV. 
Closing  Words,  13.22-25, 


PART  II 
THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES^ 

I.  Characteristics  of  the  Epistle 

I.  Jewish.  The  Epistle  of  James  is  the  most  Jewish  writ- 
ing in  the  New  Testament.  There  are  other  books  of  the 
New  Testament  which  seem  to  have  been  written  with 
especial  reference  to  the  Jewish  race.  We  believe  that  the 
Gospel  according  to  Matthew  was  written  primarily  for  the 
Jews.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  addressed  explicitly 
to  them.  The  Apocalypse  is  full  of  the  spirit  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  Epistle  of  Jude  is  Jewish  too.  Yet  all  of 
these  books  have  more  of  the  distinctively  Christian  element 
in  them  than  we  find  in  the  Epistle  of  James. 

If  we  eliminate  two  or  three  passages  containing  refer- 
ences to  Christ,  the  whole  epistle  might  find  its  place  just 
as  properly  in  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  in  that  of 
the  New,  as  far  as  its  substance  of  doctrine  and  contents 
is  concerned.  That  could  not  be  said  of  any  other  book 
in  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  incarna- 
tion or  of  the  resurrection,  the  two  fundamental  facts  of  the 
Christian  faith.  The  word  "gospel"  does  not  occur  in  the 
epistle.  There  is  no  suggestion  that  the  Messiah  has  ap- 
peared and  no  presentation  of  the  possibility  of  redemption 
through  him.  There  is  no  missionary  message  in  this 
epistle.  We  never  could  gather  from  its  contents  what  sort 
of  preaching  it  was  which  swept  the  multitudes  of  converts 
into  the  early  church.  No  details  of  the  second  coming  are 
given.  There  is  no  mention  of  the  Christian  sacraments  and 
no  instruction  concerning  the  organization  of  the  Christian 
Church. 

1  A  portion  of  this  discussion  was  prepared  for  the  International 
Standard  Bible  Encyclopaedia,  and  is  reproduced  here  by  permission. 
8i 


82  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

The  teaching  throughout  is  that  of  a  lofty  morality  which 
aims  at  the  fulfillment  of  the  requirements  of  the  Mosaic 
law.  It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  Spitta  and  others  have 
thought  that  we  have  in  the  Epistle  of  James  a  treatise  writ- 
ten by  an  unconverted  Jew  which  has  been  adapted  to 
Christian  use  by  the  interpolation  of  the  two  phrases  con- 
taining the  name  of  Christ  in  i.  i  and  2.  i.  Spitta  thinks 
that  this  alone  can  be  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  we 
have  here  an  epistle  practically  ignoring  the  life  and  work 
of  Christ  and  every  distinctively  Christian  doctrine  and 
without  a  trace  of  any  of  the  great  controversies  in  the  early 
Christian  Church  or  any  of  the  specific  features  of  its  propa- 
ganda. This  judgment  is  a  superficial  one  and  rests  upon 
superficial  indications  rather  than  upon  an  appreciation  of 
the  underlying  spirit  and  principles  of  the  book.  The  spirit 
of  Christ  is  here,  and  there  is  no  need  to  label  it.  The  prin- 
ciples of  this  epistle  are  the  principles  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount. 

There  are  more  parallels  to  that  Sermon  in  this  epistle 
than  can  be  found  anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  in 
the  same  space.  The  epistle  represents  the  ideahzation  of 
Jewish  legalism  under  the  transforming  influence  of  the 
Christian  motive  and  life.  It  is  not  a  theological  discussion. 
It  is  an  ethical  appeal.  It  has  to  do  with  the  outward  life, 
for  the  most  part;  and  the  life  it  pictures  is  that  of  a  Jew 
informed  with  the  spirit  of  Christ.  The  spirit  is  invisible 
in  the  epistle  as  in  the  individual  man.  It  is  the  body  which 
appears  and  the  outward  life  with  which  that  body  has  to  do. 
The  body  of  the  epistle  is  Jewish  and  the  outward  Hfe  to 
which  it  exhorts  is  that  of  a  profoundly  pious  Jew.  The 
Jews  who  were  familiar  with  the  Old  Testament  would  read 
this  epistle  and  find  its  language  and  tone  that  to  which  they 
were  accustomed  in  their  sacred  books. 

The  Epistle  of  James  evidently  is  written  by  a  Jew  for 
Jews.    It  is  Jewish  in  character  throughout.    This  is  appar- 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  83 

ent  in  the  following  particulars:  (i)  The  epistle  is  ad- 
dressed "to  the  twelve  tribes  which  are  of  the  Dispersion" 
(i,  i).  The  Jews  were  scattered  abroad  through  the  an- 
cient world.  From  Babylon  to  Rome,  wherever  any  com- 
munity of  them  might  be  gathered  for  commercial  or  social 
purposes,  these  exhortations  could  be  carried  and  read. 
Probably  the  epistle  was  circulated  most  widely  in  Syria 
and  Asia  Minor,  but  it  may  have  gone  out  to  the  ends  of 
the  earth.  Here  and  there  in  the  ghettos  of  the  Roman 
empire  groups  of  the  Jewish  exiles  would  gather  and  listen 
while  one  of  their  number  read  this  letter  from  home.  All 
of  its  terms  and  all  of  its  allusions  would  be  familiar  to 
them.  (2)  Their  meeting  place  is  called  "your  synagogue" 
(2.  2).  This  was  the  Jewish  name  for  the  place  of  religious 
assembly,  and  the  Jews  to  whom  James  wrote  had  no  better 
name  as  yet  for  the  building  in  which  their  Christian  assem- 
blies were  held.  Epiphanius  declares  that  the  Christian 
churches  in  Palestine  were  called  synagogues  as  late  as  the 
fourth  century.2  It  was  necessary  that  some  time  should 
elapse  before  any  sharp  distinction  would  be  made  between 
the  new  Christian  church  and  the  old  Jewish  synagogue,  and 
among  the  Christian  Jews  the  old  name  naturally  would  be 
retained  for  a  generation  or  two  at  least.  (3)  Abraham 
is  mentioned  as  "our  father"  (2.21),  and  no  indication  is 
given  that  the  fatherhood  is  to  be  understood  in  any  other 
than  the  literal  sense.  (4)  God  is  given  the  Old  Testament 
name  "the  Lord  of  Sabaoth,"  5.4.  (5)  The  law  is  not  to 
be  spoken  against  nor  judged  but  reverently  and  royally 
obeyed.  It  is  an  authoritative  law  to  which  every  loyal  Jew 
will  be  subject.  It  is  a  law  of  liberty  and,  therefore,  to  be 
freely  obeyed,  2.8-12;  4.  11.  (6)  The  sins  of  the  flesh  are 
not  inveighed  against  in  the  epistle  but  those  sins  to  which 
the  Jews  were  more  conspicuously  liable,  such  as  the  love 


*  Haer.,  xxx,  18. 


84  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

of  money  and  the  distinction  which  money  may  bring,  2.  2-4, 
worldliness  and  pride,  4. 4-6,  impatience  and  murmuring, 
5.  7-1 1,  and  other  sins  of  the  tongue,  3.  1-12;  4.  11,  12. 
(7)  The  illustrations  of  faithfulness  and  patience  and 
prayer  are  found  in  Old  Testament  characters,  in  Abraham, 
2.21,  Rahab,  2.25,  Job,  5.  11,  and  Elijah,  5.17,  18,  (8) 
The  whole  atmosphere  of  the  epistle  is  Jewish.  The  author 
has  all  of  the  twelve  tribes  in  mind  as  he  writes  and  he 
exhorts  them  all  to  fulfill  the  law  of  Moses,  knowing  that 
as  they  do  so  they  will  fulfill  the  law  of  Christ.  In  this  epis- 
tle the  gospel  is  the  perfected  law,  of  which  Jeremiah  proph- 
esied that  it  would  be  written  upon  the  heart.^  There  are 
references  to  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Deuteronomy, 
Joshua,  Job,  Proverbs,  and  Isaiah,  as  books  perfectly  fa- 
miliar to  the  readers.  The  mention  of  the  first  fruits 
(i.  18),  and  the  parallel  between  worldliness  and  spiritual 
adultery  (4.  4)  would  be  appreciated  most  fully  by  students 
of  the  Old  Testament.  (9)  The  illustrations  from  nature 
are  such  as  would  appeal  to  any  one  familiar  with  Pales- 
tine, a  land  of  the  fig  and  the  olive  and  the  vine  (3.  12),  with 
salt  springs  as  well  as  fountains  flowing  from  the  limestone 
rocks  (3.  11),  with  the  Dead  Sea  of  salt  whose  waters  never 
can  be  sweet  (3.  11),  and  the  lively  Sea  of  Galilee  whose 
waves  lash  the  shore  (1.6),  with  scorching  winds  (i.  11), 
and  early  and  latter  rains  (5.  7).  (10)  We  are  told  that  the 
vocabulary  of  James  consists  of  about  five  hundred  and 
seventy  words,  and  all  but  twenty-five  of  these  are  to  be 
found  in  the  Greek  Old  Testament,  including  the  Apoc- 
rypha.^ Evidently  the  author  is  perfectly  familiar  with 
the  Septuagint,  and  he  seems  to  expect  that  his  readers 
shall  be  equally  so.  (11)  The  epistle  is  theocentric  rather 
than  Christocentric  throughout ;  and  again  and  again  where 


»Jer.  3I-33- 

*  Ropes,  Commentary  on  James,  p.  25. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  85 

we  naturally  would  expect  Christ's  example  to  be  mentioned 
we  are  referred  to  some  Old  Testament  illustration  instead. 

When  these  indications  are  taken  together  and  we  remem- 
ber the  brevity  of  the  epistle  in  which  they  are  accumulated, 
we  must  conclude  that  both  the  author  and  the  readers  are 
Jewish  in  training  and  outlook,  and  for  them,  as  Mayor 
says,  "Christian  ideas  are  still  clothed  in  Jewish  forms."^ 
The  author  of  this  epistle  is  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews.  He 
is  a  Hebrew  prophet  in  a  Christian  pulpit.  He  is  a  Hebrew 
rabbi  in  the  Christian  Church.  His  epistle  is  one  of  the  con- 
necting links  between  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament, true  to  the  Old  in  its  form  and  true  to  the  New  in 
its  spirit,  the  most  Jewish  of  the  New  Testament  books  and 
yet  Christian  to  the  core  and  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  canon 
of  the  Christian  Church. 

Luther  would  have  ruled  it  out  of  the  New  Testament 
canon  because  it  said  so  little  about  Christian  doctrines  or 
the  Christ.  He  said:  "It  teaches  Christian  people,  and  yet 
does  not  once  notice  the  Passion,  the  Resurrection,  the  Spirit 
of  Christ.  The  writer  names  Christ  a  few  times;  but  he 
teaches  nothing  of  him,  but  speaks  of  general  faith  in  God." 
Samuel  Davidson  agrees  with  this  general  indictment.  He 
declares :  "The  author's  standpoint  is  Jewish  rather  than 
Christian.  The  ideas  are  cast  in  a  Jewish  mold.  The  very 
name  of  Christ  occurs  but  twice,  and  his  atonement  is 
scarcely  touched.  We  see  little  more  than  the  threshold  of 
the  new  system.  It  is  the  teaching  of  a  Christian  Jew, 
rather  than  of  one  who  has  reached  a  true  apprehension  of 
the  essence  of  Christ's  religion.  The  doctrinal  development 
is  imperfect.  It  is  only  necessary  to  read  the  entire  epistle 
to  perceive  the  truth  of  these  remarks. 

"In  warning  his  readers  against  transgression  of  the  law 
by  partiality  to  individuals  the  author  adduces  Jewish  rather 


Mayor,  Commentary  on  James,  p.  ii. 


86  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

than  Christian  motives  (2.8-13).  The  greater  part  of  the 
third  chapter,  respecting  the  government  of  the  tongue,  is 
of  the  same  character,  in  which  Christ's  example  is  not  once 
alluded  to,  the  illustrations  being  taken  from  objects  in  na- 
ture. The  warning  against  uncharitable  judgment  does  not 
refer  to  Christ,  or  to  God,  who  puts  his  Spirit  in  the  hearts 
of  believers,  but  to  the  law  (4.  10-12).  He  who  judges  his 
neighbor  judges  the  law.  The  exhortation  to  feel  and  act 
under  constant  remembrance  of  the  dependence  of  our  life 
on  God  belongs  to  the  same  category  (4.  13-17). 

"He  that  knows  good  without  doing  it  is  earnestly  admon- 
ished to  practice  virtue  and  to  avoid  self-security,  without 
reference  to  motives  connected  with  redemption.  Job  and 
the  prophets  are  quoted  as  examples  of  patience,  not  Christ; 
and  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  proved  by  the  instance  of  EHas, 
without  allusion  to  the  Redeemer's  promise  (5.  17).  The 
epistle  is  wound  up  after  the  same  Jewish  fashion,  though 
the  opportunity  of  mentioning  Christ,  who  gave  himself  a 
sacrifice  for  sin,  presented  itself  naturally."^ 

It  is  true  that  the  epistle  is  written  from  a  Jewish  stand- 
point and  that  it  has  a  Jewish  flavor  throughout,  but  these 
things  are  no  more  true  of  it  than  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  We  believe  that  the  Epistle  of  James  is  as  full  of 
the  spirit  of  Jesus  as  is  that  Sermon.  The  First  Epistle  of 
John  says  nothing  about  the  cross  or  the  resurrection,  and 
yet  no  one  questions  its  thoroughgoing  spirituality  or 
Christianity  on  that  account.  The  Epistle  of  James  is  very 
different  from  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  but  we  believe  that 
the  one  epistle  is  just  as  Christian  as  the  other.  The  First 
Epistle  of  John  represents  the  mystical  Christianity  of  the 
close  of  the  first  century  of  church  history.  The  Epistle  of 
James  represents  the  practical  morality  of  Jewish  Christian- 


»  Davidson,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i, 
pp.  327,  328. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  87 

ity  in  the  first  generation  of  the  Christian  Church,  when  that 
church  was  still  a  synagogue  and  its  Jewish  members  were 
still  loyal  to  the  Mosaic  law  and  were  endeavoring  to  fulfill  it 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  seemed  to 
them  to  represent  the  spirit  of  Jesus  their  Lord.  It  was 
written  by  a  Jew  to  Jews,  and  it  is  the  most  Jewish  book  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  its  author  is  a  Christian,  and  all 
he  has  to  say  he  says  in  the  light  of  the  revelation  made  by 
Christ. 

2.  Authoritative.  The  writer  of  this  epistle  speaks  as  one 
having  authority.  He  is  not  on  his  defense  as  Paul  so  often 
is.  There  is  no  trace  of  apology  in  his  presentation  of  truth. 
His  official  position  must  have  been  recognized  and  unques- 
tioned. He  is  as  sure  of  his  standing  with  his  readers  as  he 
is  of  the  absoluteness  of  his  message.  No  Old  Testament 
lawgiver  or  prophet  was  more  certain  that  he  spoke  the  word 
of  the  Lord.  He  has  the  vehemence  of  Elijah  and  the  as- 
sured meekness  of  Moses.  He  has  been  called  "the  Amos 
of  the  New  Testament,"  and  there  are  paragraphs  which 
recall  the  very  expressions  used  by  Amos  and  which  are  full 
of  the  same  fiery  eloquence  and  prophetic  fervor.  Both 
fill  their  writings  with  metaphors  drawn  from  the  sky  and 
the  sea,  from  natural  objects  and  domestic  experiences. 
Both  seem  to  be  country  bred  and  to  be  in  sympathy  with 
simplicity  and  poverty.  Both  inveigh  against  the  luxury 
and  the  cruelty  of  the  idle  rich  and  both  abhor  the  cere- 
monial and  the  ritual  which  is  not  backed  by  individual 
righteousness. 

Malachi  was  not  the  last  of  the  prophets.  John  the  Bap- 
tist was  not  the  last  prophet  of  the  Old  Dispensation.  The 
writer  of  this  epistle  stands  at  the  end  of  that  prophetic 
line,  and  he  is  greater  than  John  the  Baptist  or  any  who 
have  preceded  him  because  he  stands  within  the  borders  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ.  He  speaks  with  authority,  as  a 
messenger  of  God.    He  belongs  to  the  goodly  fellowship  of 


88  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

the  prophets  and  of  the  apostles.  He  has  the  authority  of 
both.  There  are  fifty-four  imperatives  in  the  one  hundred 
and  eight  verses  of  this  epistle.  There  is  not  a  word  of 
praise;  but  there  is  much  fault  suggested  among  both  the 
Christian  and  the  non-Christian  Jews  to  whom  James  writes. 
He  reproves,  rebukes,  exhorts  like  an  authorized  messenger 
of  God. 

3.  Practical.  The  epistle  is  interested  in  conduct  more 
than  in  creed.  It  has  very  little  formulated  theology,  less 
than  any  other  epistle  of  its  length  in  the  New  Testament; 
but  it  insists  upon  practical  morality  throughout.  It  begins 
and  it  closes  with  an  exhortation  to  patience  and  prayer.  It 
preaches  a  gospel  of  good  works,  based  upon  love  to  God 
and  love  to  man.  It  demands  liberty,  equahty,  fraternity 
for  all.  It  enjoins  humility  and  justice  and  peace.  It  pre- 
scribes singleness  of  purpose  and  steadfastness  of  soul.  It 
requires  obedience  to  the  law,  control  of  the  passions  and 
control  of  the  tongue.  Its  ideal  is  to  be  found  in  a  good  life, 
characterized  by  the  meekness  of  wisdom. 

The  writer  of  the  epistle  has  caught  the  spirit  of  the 
ancient  prophets,  but  the  lessons  he  teaches  are  taken  for 
the  most  part  from  the  Wisdom  literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  Apocrypha.  His  direct  quotations  are  all  from 
the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Proverbs;  but  it  has  been 
estimated  that  there  are  ten  allusions  to  the  book  of  Proverbs, 
six  to  the  book  of  Job,  five  to  the  book  of  the  Wisdom  of 
Solomon,  and  fifteen  to  the  Book  of  Ecclesiasticus  or  the 
Wisdom  of  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach.  This  wisdom  litera- 
ture furnishes  the  themes  of  his  meditation  and  a  consider- 
able portion  of  his  teaching.  James  has  much  to  say  about 
the  wisdom  which  cometh  down  from  above,  and  is  pure, 
peaceable,  gentle,  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and 
good  fruits,  without  partiality,  without  hypocrisy  (3.  15-17), 
and  the  whole  epistle  shows  that  the  author  had  stored  his 
mind  with  the  rich  treasure  of  the  ancient  Wisdom  books. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  89 

and  his  material  while  offered  as  his  own  is  both  old  and 
new. 

The  form  is  largely  that  of  the  Wisdom  literature  of  the 
Jews.  It  has  more  parallels  with  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach 
than  with  any  writer  of  the  sacred  books.  So  many  of  these 
coincidences  occur  in  the  first  chapter  that  it  has  been  sug- 
gested that  James  must  have  been  reading  the  Book  of  Ec- 
clesiasticus  just  before  he  sat  down  to  write  his  own  epistle. 
Farrar  points  out  the  fact  that  this  familiarity  with  the 
Alexandrian  apocryphal  literature  "is  the  more  striking  be- 
cause in  other  respects  James  shows  no  sympathy  with 
Alexandrian  speculations.  There  is  not  in  him  the  faintest 
tinge  of  Philonian  philosophy;  on  the  contrary,  he  belongs 
in  a  marked  degree  to  the  school  of  Jerusalem.  He  is  a 
thorough  Hebraizer,  a  typical  Judaist.  All  his  thoughts  and 
phrases  move  normally  in  the  Palestinian  sphere.  .  .  . 
The  sapiential  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the 
least  specifically  Israelite.  It  was  the  direct  precursor  of 
Alexandrian  morals.  It  deals  with  mankind,  and  not  with 
the  Jew.  Yet  James,  who  shows  so  much  partiality  for  this 
literature,  is  of  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  the 
least  Alexandrian  and  the  most  Judaic.'"^ 

There  is  little  or  no  trace  of  the  Pauline  or  the  Johan- 
nine  type  of  teaching  in  the  Epistle  of  James.  This  epistle 
goes  back  of  these  to  the  primitive  teaching  of  Jesus  in  Gali- 
lee. In  the  same  way  James  ignores  all  the  later  specula- 
tions of  the  Alexandrian  and  Philonian  philosophy,  and 
while  making  use  of  that  portion  of  the  Alexandrian  Utera- 
ture  which  seemed  to  him  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  teach- 
ings of  the  older  Wisdom  books  he  prefers  to  go  back  to 
these  for  his  final  authority.  He  borrows  much  from  these 
books  for  the  form  of  his  writing,  but  the  substance  of  his 
exhortation  is  to  be  found  in  the  synoptics  and  more  par- 


Farrar,  The  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  vol.  i,  pp.  517,  518. 


90  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

ticularly  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.    His  wisdom  is  the 
wisdom  of  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  who  is  the  Christ. 

These  are  the  three  outstanding  characteristics  of  this 
epistle.  It  is  the  most  Jewish  and  least  Christian  of  the 
writings  in  the  New  Testament.  That  is  to  say,  the  Chris- 
tianity of  this  epistle  is  latent  rather  than  apparent,  as  in 
the  other  books.  It  is  the  most  authoritative  in  its  tone  of 
any  of  the  epistles  in  the  New  Testament,  unless  it  be  those 
of  the  apostle  John.  John  must  have  occupied  a  position 
of  undisputed  primacy  in  the  Christian  Church  after  the 
death  of  all  the  other  members  of  the  apostolic  band  and  at 
the  time  of  the  writing  of  his  epistles.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
the  writer  of  this  epistle  assumes  a  tone  of  like  authority 
with  him.  John  was  the  apostle  of  love,  Paul  of  faith,  and 
Peter  of  hope.  This  writer  is  the  apostle  of  good  works, 
the  apostle  of  the  wisdom  which  manifests  itself  in  peace 
and  purity,  mercy  and  morality,  obedience  to  the  royal  law, 
the  law  of  liberty.  In  its  Jewish  form,  its  authoritative  tone, 
and  its  insistence  upon  practical  morality  the  epistle  is 
unique  among  the  New  Testament  books. 

II.  Author  of  the  Epistle 

The  address  of  the  epistle  states  that  the  writer  is  "James, 
a  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (i.  i).  The 
tradition  of  the  church  has  identified  this  James  with  the 
brother  of  our  Lord.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says  that 
Peter  and  James  and  John,  who  were  the  three  apostles 
most  honored  by  the  Lord,  chose  James,  the  Lord's  brother, 
to  be  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem  after  the  Lord's  ascension.^ 
This  tradition  agrees  well  with  all  the  notices  of  James  in 
the  New  Testament  books. 

When  Peter  was  released  from  prison  he  asked  that  the 
news  be  sent  to  James  and  to  the  brethren.^  In  the  apos- 
tolic conference  held  at  Jerusalem,  after  Peter  and  Paul  and 

8  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  i.  'Acts  12.  17. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  91 

Barnabas  had  spoken,  James  sums  up  the  whole  discussion, 
and  his  decision  is  adopted  by  the  assembly  and  formulated 
in  a  letter  which  has  some  very  striking  parallels  in  its 
phraseology  to  this  epistle.^^'  When  Paul  came  to  Jerusalem 
for  the  last  time  he  reported  his  work  to  James  and  all  the 
elders  present  with  him.^i  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
Paul  says  that  at  the  time  of  one  of  his  visits  to  Jerusalem 
he  saw  none  of  the  apostles  save  Peter  and  James,  the  Lord's 
brother.^2  At  another  visit  he  received  the  right  hand  of 
fellowship  from  James  and  Cephas  and  John.^^  At  a  later 
time  certain  who  came  from  James  to  Antioch  led  Peter 
into  backsliding  from  his  former  position  of  tolerance 
toward  the  Gentiles  as  equals  in  the  Christian  Church.^* 

All  of  these  references  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
James  stood  in  a  position  of  supreme  authority  in  the  mother 
church  at  Jerusalem,  the  oldest  church  of  Christendom.  He 
presides  in  their  assemblies.  He  speaks  the  final  and  authori- 
tative word.  Peter  and  Paul  defer  to  him.  Paul  men- 
tions his  name  before  that  of  Peter  and  John.  When  he 
was  exalted  to  this  leadership  we  do  not  know,  but  all  indi- 
cations seem  to  point  to  the  fact  that  he  was  the  recog- 
nized executive  authority  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  which 
was  the  church  of  Pentecost  and  the  church  of  the  apostles. 
All  Jews  looked  to  Jerusalem  as  the  chief  seat  of  their  wor- 
ship and  the  central  authority  of  their  religion.  All  Chris- 
tian Jews  would  look  to  Jerusalem  as  the  primitive  source 
of  their  organization  and  faith,  and  the  head  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem  would  be  recognized  by  them  as  their  chief 
authority.  The  authoritative  tone  of  this  epistle  comports 
well  with  this  position  of  primacy  ascribed  to  James. 

All  tradition  agrees  in  describing  James  as  a  Hebrew 
of  the  Hebrews,  a  man  of  the  most  rigid  and  ascetic  moral- 
ity, faithful  in  his  observance  of  all  the  ritual  regulations 

"Acts  15.  6-29.  "Acts  21.  18.  '2  Gal  i.  18,  19. 

"  Gal.  2.  9.  "  Gal  2.  12. 


92  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

of  the  Jewish  faith.  Hegesippus  tells  us  that  he  was  holy 
from  his  mother's  womb.  He  drank  no  wine  nor  strong 
drink.  He  ate  no  flesh.  He  alone  was  permitted  to  enter 
into  the  holy  place,  and  he  was  found  there  frequently  upon 
his  knees  begging  forgiveness  for  the  people,  and  his  knees 
became  hard  like  those  of  a  camel  in  consequence  of  his  con- 
stantly bending  them  in  his  worship  of  God  and  asking  for- 
giveness for  the  people.  He  was  called  James  the  Just. 
All  had  confidence  in  his  sincerity  and  integrity,  and  many 
were  persuaded  by  him  to  beheve  on  the  Christ. 

This  Jew,  faithful  in  the  observance  of  all  that  the  Jews 
held  sacred  and  more  devoted  to  the  temple  worship  than 
the  most  pious  among  them,  was  a  good  choice  for  the  head 
of  the  Christian  Church.  The  blood  of  David  flowed  in 
his  veins.  He  had  all  the  Jew's  pride  in  the  special  priv- 
ileges of  the  chosen  race.  The  Jews  respected  him  and  the 
Christians  revered  him.  No  man  among  them  commanded 
the  esteem  of  the  entire  population  as  much  as  he.  He 
was  more  discreet  than  Peter.  He  had  a  better  reputation 
for  orthodoxy  than  Paul.  He  was  more  popular  in  the 
Jerusalem  church  than  John.  He  was  famous  for  his 
prudence  and  his  patience  and  his  wisdom.  At  Jerusalem 
he  was  a  better  bishop  than  any  of  the  apostles  would  have 
been.  He  was  so  good  an  example  of  Jewish  piety  that  he 
had  free  access  to  the  Jews  in  his  evangelistic  efforts.  He 
could  reach  and  influence  them  as  Paul  never  could  have 
hoped  to  do.  It  was  his  mission,  for  which  no  one  was  so 
well  adapted  as  he,  to  show  the  fundamental  unity  of  the 
law  and  the  gospel  and  to  preach  the  fulfillment  of  the  law 
in  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

His  epistle  was  to  bind  the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments 
together  and  was  for  that  reason  to  be  essential  to  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  Sacred  Book;  and  in  the  same  way  his 
ministry  in  Jerusalem  and  his  presidency  over  the  Jerusalem 
church  bridged  over  the  crisis  years  in  which  the  Christian 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  93 

Jews  were  living  among  and  laboring  for  their  countrymen 
and  still  hoping  that  they  might  be  won  to  a  better  faith. 
They  themselves  were  loyal  to  the  Mosaic  law  while  they 
rejoiced  in  the  freedom  won  for  them  in  Christ.  We  know 
of  no  man  in  that  early  church  who  could  have  served  the 
Christian  faith  in  that  Jewish  population  of  the  capital  city 
so  well  as  James  the  just,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  the  servant 
of  God  and  the  servant  of  his  fellow  men. 

Josephus  tells  us  that  Ananus,  the  high  priest,  had  James 
stoned  to  death,  and  that  the  most  equitable  of  the  citi- 
zens immediately  rose  in  revolt  against  such  a  lawless  pro- 
cedure and  Ananus  was  deposed  after  only  three  months' 
rule.^^  This  testimony  of  Josephus  simply  substantiates  all 
we  know  from  other  sources  concerning  the  high  standing  of 
James  in  the  whole  community.  Hegesippus  says  that  James 
first  was  thrown  from  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  and  then 
they  stoned  him  because  he  was  not  killed  by  the  fall,  and 
he  finally  was  beaten  over  the  head  with  a  fuller's  club; 
and  then  he  adds,  significantly,  "Immediately  Vespasian  be- 
sieged them."!^  There  would  seem  to  have  been  quite  a 
widespread  conviction  among  both  the  Christians  and  the 
Jews  that  the  afflictions  which  fell  upon  the  Holy  City  and 
the  chosen  people  in  the  following  years  were  in  part  a  vis- 
itation because  of  the  great  crime  of  the  murder  of  this 
just  man.  We  can  understand  how  a  man  with  this  reputa- 
tion and  character  would  write  an  epistle  so  Jewish  in  form 
and  substance  and  so  insistent  in  its  demands  for  a  practical 
morality  as  is  the  Epistle  of  James.-  All  the  characteristics  of 
the  epistle  seem  explicable  on  the  supposition  of  authorship 
by  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord. 

III.  The  Style  of  the  Epistle 
1.  Its  Plainness.  The  sentence  construction  is  simple  and 
straightforward.    It  reminds  us  of  the  English  of  Bunyan 
"  Josephus,  Antiq.  xx.  9.  ^^  Eusebius,  Hist.  EccL,  ii,  23. 


94  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

and  DeFoe.  There  usually  is  no  good  reason  for  misunder- 
standing anything  James  says.  He  puts  his  truth  plainly, 
and  the  words  he  uses  have  no  hidden  or  mystical  mean- 
ings. His  thought  is  transparent  as  his  life.  Zahn  says  of 
it:  "Without  any  extended  discussion  or  argument,  James 
shows  that  he  has  a  vital  grasp  of  the  truth,  in  language 
which  for  forcibleness  is  without  parallel  in  early  Christian 
hterature,  excepting  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  We  have  here 
the  eloquence  that  comes  from  the  heart  and  goes  to  the 
conscience,  a  kind  which  never  was  learned  in  a  school  of 
rhetoric.  The  flow  of  words  seems  to  be  just  as  natural  as 
the  succession  of  ideas."^^ 

The  plain  man  with  a  gift  for  style  does  not  indulge  in 
periphrasis  and  elaborate  sentence  construction.  He  says 
what  he  means  straight  out  and  straightaway.  There  are 
no  double  relative  pronouns,  no  genitive  absolutes,  no 
epexegetical  infinitives  in  the  Epistle  of  James.  That  is  to 
say,  there  are  no  long  sentences,  becoming  involved  both  in 
construction  and  thought.  Mayor  says  that  there  are  only 
two  sentences  in  the  epistle  which  are  more  than  four  lines 
in  length,  and  in  each  of  these  the  construction  is  clear  and 
the  meaning  perfectly  intelligible.^^  On  the  other  hand,  we 
find  sentences  ten  lines  long  in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter, 
twelve  Hues  long  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  twenty 
lines  long  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  There  is  nothing 
of  the  oratorical  amplitude  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
or  of  the  impassioned  and  ungrammatical  eloquence  of  the 
apostle  Paul  in  the  Epistle  of  James.  "The  sentences  are 
short,  simple,  direct,  conveying  weighty  thoughts  in  weighty 
words."i9  Sometimes  they  remind  us  of  the  Proverbs, 
sometimes  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  and  sometimes 
of  the  parables  of  Jesus.  Always  they  are  simplicity  per- 
sonified, and  in  that  fact  they  find  much  of  their  power. 

"Zahn,  op.  cit.,  vol.  i,  p.  ill.  "Mayor,  Commentary,  p.  cclv. 

"  Mayor,  op.  cit.,  p.  ccxlix. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  95 

2.  Its  Good  Greek.  It  is  somewhat  surprising  to  find 
that  the  Greek  of  the  Epistle  of  James  is  better  than  that 
of  the  other  New  Testament  writers,  with  the  single  excep- 
tion of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Of  course 
this  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  James  had  the  services  of 
an  amanuensis  who  was  a  Greek  scholar  or  that  his  own 
manuscript  was  revised  by  such  a  man;  but,  although  un- 
expected, it  is  not  impossible  that  James  himself  may  have 
been  capable  of  writing  such  Greek  as  this.  It  is  not  the  good 
Greek  of  the  classics  and  it  is  not  the  poor  and  provincial 
Greek  of  Paul.  There  is  more  care  for  literary  form 
than  in  the  uncouth  periods  of  the  Gentile  apostle ;  and  the 
vocabulary  would  seem  to  indicate  an  acquaintance  with  the 
literary  as  well  as  the  commercial  and  the  conversational 
Greek. 

"Galilee  was  studded  with  Greek  towns,  and  it  was  cer- 
tainly in  the  power  of  any  Galilsean  to  gain  a  knowledge  of 
Greek.  .  .  .  We  know  also  that  the  neighboring  town, 
Gadara,  was  celebrated  as  an  important  seat  of  Greek  learn- 
ing and  literature,  and  that  the  author  of  our  epistle  shows 
an  acquaintance  with  ideas  and  phrases  which  were  prob- 
ably derived,  mediately  or  immediately,  from  the  Stoic  phil- 
osophers. If  we  call  to  mind  further  that  he  seems  to  have 
paid  particular  attention  to  the  sapiential  books,  both  canoni- 
cal and  apocryphal,  and  that  a  main  point  in  these  is  to 
encourage  the  study  of  'the  dark  sayings  of  the  wise';  that 
the  wisdom  of  Edom  and  Teman  is  noted  as  famous  by 
some  of  the  prophets,  and  that  the  interlocutors  in  the  book 
of  Job  are  assigned  with  probability  to  this  and  the  neighbor- 
ing regions — taking  into  account  all  these  considerations,  we 
may  reasonably  suppose  that  our  author  would  not  have 
scrupled  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunities  within  his 
reach,  so  as  to  master  the  Greek  language,  and  learn  some- 
thing of  Greek  philosophy.  This  would  be  natural,  even 
if  we  think  of  James  as  impelled  only  by  a  desire  to  gain 


96  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

wisdom  and  knowledge  for  himself,  but  if  we  think  of  him 
also  as  the  principal  teacher  of  the  Jewish  believers,  many 
of  whom  were  Hellenists,  instructed  in  the  wisdom  of  Alex- 
andria, then  the  natural  bent  would  take  the  shape  of  duty: 
he  would  be  a  student  of  Greek  in  order  that  he  might  be 
a  more  effective  instructor  to  his  own  people. "20 

This  is  the  conclusion  reached  by  the  greatest  English 
commentator  on  this  epistle,  and  it  seems  to  us  altogether 
reasonable.  The  Greek  of  the  epistle  is  the  studied  Greek 
of  one  who  was  not  a  native  to  it  but  who  had  familiarized 
himself  with  its  literature.  James  could  have  done  so  and 
the  epistle  may  be  proof  that  he  did.  James  lived  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Gadara  and  other  Greek  cities  in  his 
early  life,  and  Mommsen  tells  us  that  the  use  of  the  Greek 
language  was  compulsory  in  these  communities  and  that 
the  Jews  in  the  Greek  towns  became  Greek-speaking  Orien- 
tals,2i  and  Mayor  concludes  that  "it  was  not  more  impos- 
sible for  a  peasant  of  Galilee  to  learn  to  write  good  Greek 
than  for  one  who  had  been  brought  up  as  a  Welsh  peasant 
to  learn  to  write  good  English,  or  for  a  Breton  to  write 
good  French;  far  more  likely,  we  might  think,  than  that  a 
clever  Hindoo  should,  as  so  many  have  done,  make  himself 
familiar  with  the  best  English  authors,  and  write  a  good 
English  style."22 

Mitchell  suggests  these  further  considerations :  "Matthew, 
as  an  official  of  the  government,  must  have  understood  and 
used  Greek.  Among  the  apostles,  Andrew  and  Philip  have 
Greek  names  by  which  they  must  have  been  called  from 
boyhood.  Josephus,  born  A.  D.  37,  a  native  of  Jerusalem, 
wrote  in  Greek.  .  .  .  The  Greek  Jews,  who  lived  in 
the  cities  of  the  empire,  used  Greek  as  their  everyday  lan- 
guage; even  when  they  returned  and  settled  in  Jerusalem 

"  Mayor,  Commentary  on  James,  pp.  cclxiv,  cclxv. 
^>  Mommsen,  The  Provinces,  vol.  ii,  pp.  i62f. 
»  Mayor,  Commentary,  p.  Ixi. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  97 

they  had  their  own  synagogue,  where  the  Greek  Bible  was 
read  and  the  Greek  service  held,  Acts  6.  9.  .  ,  .  The 
first  three  thousand  converts  were,  judging  from  their  home 
names,  Greek-speaking  people.  From  the  first  the  church 
was  bilingual,  and  it  was  so  difficult  to  administer  it  unless 
some  of  the  rulers  could  speak  Greek,  that  the  seven  Greek- 
speaking  deacons  were  appointed,  all  of  whom  have  Greek 
names,  Acts  6.  5.  .  .  .  For  about  twenty  years  James 
presided  over  this  bilingual  community.  It  is  not  difficult, 
then,  to  suppose  that  in  that  time  he  acquired  mastery  of  the 
Greek  language.  Thousands  of  Jews  engaged  in  com- 
merce had  to  do  the  same,"^^  and  it  is  not  likely  that  James 
would  be  any  less  earnest  than  they  in  the  acquisition  of 
a  tongue  which  would  enable  him  to  be  doubly  serviceable 
to  the  cause  of  the  Christ. 

It  is  surprising  that  James  wrote  such  good  Greek,  but 
it  was  surprising  that  John  Bunyan  wrote  such  good  Eng- 
lish. Neither  Shakespeare  nor  Bunyan  nor  Burns  had  a 
university  education  and  yet  their  books  are  models  of  Eng- 
lish undefiled.  James  may  have  belonged  to  this  peasant 
genius  type  in  literature. 

3.  Its  Vividness.  James  never  is  content  to  talk  in  ab- 
stractions. He  always  sets  a  picture  before  his  own  eyes  and 
those  of  his  readers.  He  has  the  dramatic  instinct.  He  has 
the  secret  of  sustained  interest.  He  is  not  discussing  things 
in  general  but  things  in  particular.  He  is  an  artist  and  be- 
lieves in  concrete  realities.  At  the  same  time  he  has  a  touch 
of  poetry  in  him  and  a  fine  sense  of  the  analogies  running 
through  all  nature  and  all  life.  The  doubting  man  is  like 
the  sea  spume,  i .  6.  The  rich  man  fades  away  in  his  goings 
even  as  the  beauty  of  the  flower  falls  and  perishes  (i.  11). 
Lust  is  a  harlot,  the  mother  of  sin  and  the  grandmother  of 
death  (i.  15).    The  heedless  hearing  of  the  word  of  life  is 

2»  Mitchell,  Commentary  on  Hebrews  and  the  General  Epistles, 
pp.  34.  35. 


98  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

like  the  careless  glance  at  one's  face  in  the  mirror  forgotten 
as  soon  as  something  else  has  attracted  the  attention  (i.  23, 
24). 

The  synagogue  scene  with  its  distinction  between  the  rich 
and  the  poor  is  set  before  us  with  the  clear-cut  impressive- 
ness  of  a  cameo  (2.  1-4).  The  Pecksniffian  philanthropist 
who  seems  to  think  that  men  can  be  fed  not  by  bread  alone 
but  by  the  words  which  proceed  from  his  mouth  is  pilloried 
here  for  all  time  (2.  15,  16).  The  untamable  tongue  set  on 
fire  of  hell  is  put  in  the  full  blaze  of  its  world  of  iniquity, 
and  the  damage  it  does  is  shown  to  be  Hke  that  of  a  forest 
fire  (3.  1-12).  The  picture  of  the  wisdom  which  comes 
from  above  with  its  sevenfold  excellencies  of  purity,  peace- 
ableness,  gentleness,  mercy,  fruitfulness,  impartiality,  sin- 
cerity, is  worthy  to  hang  in  the  gallery  of  the  world's  mas- 
terpieces (3.  17),  The  vaunting  tradesmen  whose  lives  are 
like  vanishing  vapor  stand  there  before  the  eyes  of  all  in 
Jerusalem  (4.  13-16).  The  rich,  whose  luxuries  he  de- 
scribes even  while  he  denounces  their  cruelties  and  proph- 
esies their  coming  day  of  slaughter,  are  the  rich  who  walk 
the  streets  of  his  own  city  (5.  1-6).  Always  the  people  to 
whom  he  writes  or  of  whom  he  writes  are  before  his  eyes. 
He  pictures  them  true  to  life.  They  are  characters  never  to 
be  lost  sight  of  henceforth  in  world  literature.  The  hypocrit- 
ical usher  in  the  synagogue,  the  theological  disputant  proud 
of  his  faith  without  works,  the  teacher  with  uncontrolled 
tongue,  the  traveling  merchant  who  cannot  travel  far  enough 
or  fast  enough  to  escape  death,  the  wicked  rich  and  the  op- 
pressed poor,  the  peaceable  wise  man  and  the  fighting  fool 
— here  they  are,  pilloried  or  pedestaled  for  all  time  to  come. 
James  has  pictured  them  in  unforgettable  fashion  and  the 
world  is  the  richer  for  the  genuineness  and  the  genius  which 
has  given  them  immortal  life.  James  is  a  poet  and  a  prophet, 
and  an  artist  as  well. 

His  short  sentences  go  like  shots  straight  to  the  mark. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  99 

We  feel  the  impact  and  the  impress  of  them.  There  is  an 
energy  behind  them  and  a  reahty  in  them  which  make  them 
Hve  in  our  thought.  His  abrupt  questions  are  like  the  quick 
interrogations  of  a  cross-examining  lawyer  (2.  4,  5,  6,  7, 
14,  16;  3.  II,  12;  4.  I,  4,  5,  12,  14).  His  proverbs  have  the 
intensity  of  the  accumulated  and  compressed  wisdom  of  the 
ages.  They  are  irreducible  minimums.  They  are  memo- 
rable sayings,  treasured  in  the  speech  of  the  world  ever  since 
his  day.  They  remind  us  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  we 
could  give  them  no  higher  praise  than  that.  James  had 
something  of  the  versatility  of  Jesus  too.  Now  he  defeats 
an  antagonist  in  straight  debate,  now  he  crushes  him  with 
cutting  irony,  and  now  he  preaches  to  him  in  pure  poetry 
of  illustration  and  parable,  or  takes  his  favorite  scripture 
and  proves  to  him  on  the  basis  of  that  text  that  the  truth 
is  the  opposite  of  that  which  he  holds.  There  is  an  energy 
and  vitality  about  it  all  which  makes  it  vivid  and  interesting 
today. 

4.  Its  Duadiplosis.  Sometimes  James  adds  sentence  to 
sentence  with  the  repetition  of  some  leading  word  or  phrase 
(i.  1-6;  I.  19-24;  3.  2-8).  It  is  a  method  by  which  a  discus- 
sion could  be  continued  indefinitely.  Nothing  but  the  vivid- 
ness of  the  imagery  and  the  intensity  of  the  thought  saves 
James  from  fatal  monotony  in  the  use  of  this  device. 

5.  Its  Poetic  Conceptions.  James  has  a  keen  eye  for 
illustrations.  He  is  not  blind  to  the  beauties  and  wonders 
of  nature.  He  sees  what  is  happening  on  every  hand  and 
he  is  quick  to  catch  any  homiletical  suggestion  it  may  hold. 
Does  he  stand  by  the  seashore?  Then  the  surge  which  is 
driven  by  the  wind  and  tossed  reminds  him  of  the  man  who 
is  unstable  in  all  his  ways  because  he  has  no  anchorage  of 
faith  and  his  convictions  are  like  driftwood  on  a  sea  of 
doubt   (1,6). 24     Then  he  notices  that  the  great  ships  are 

"  Luther  calls  this  passage  "der  einzige  und  beste  Ort  in  der  ganzen 
EpisteL" 


100         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

turned  about  by  a  small  rudder  and  he  thinks  how  the 
tongue  is  a  small  member  but  it  accomplishes  great  things 
(3,4,  5).  Does  he  walk  under  the  sunlight  and  rejoice  in 
it  as  the  source  of  so  many  good  and  perfect  gifts?  He  sees 
in  it  an  image  of  the  goodness  of  God  which  never  is 
eclipsed  and  never  is  exhausted,  ever  the  same  (i.  17). 

He  uses  the  natural  phenomena  of  the  land  in  which  he 
lives  to  make  his  meaning  plain  at  every  turn — the  flower 
of  the  field  which  passes  away  (i.  10,  11),  the  forest  fire 
which  sweeps  the  mountainside  and  like  a  living  torch  lights 
up  the  whole  land  (3.  5),  the  sweet  and  salt  springs  (3.  11), 
the  fig  trees  and  olive  trees  and  the  vines  (3.  12),  the  seed- 
sowing  and  the  fruit-bearing  (3.  18),  the  morning  mist 
which  immediately  is  lost  to  view  (4.  14),  the  early  and  the 
latter  rain  for  which  the  husbandman  waiteth  patiently 
(5.7).  There  is  more  of  the  appreciation  of  nature  in  the 
one  short  Epistle  of  James  than  in  all  the  epistles  of  Paul 
put  together.  Human  life  was  more  interesting  to  Paul 
than  the  beauties  of  nature  were ;  but  James  is  interested  in 
human  life  too.  He  is  constantly  endowing  inanimate  things 
with  living  qualities. 

He  represents  sin  as  a  harlot,  conceiving  and  bringing 
forth  death  (i.  15).  The  word  of  truth  has  a  like  power 
and  conceives  and  brings  forth  those  who  live  to  God's 
praise  (i.  18).  Pleasures  are  like  gay  hosts  of  enemies  in 
a  tournament  who  deck  themselves  bravely  and  ride  forth 
with  singing  and  laughter,  but  whose  mission  is  to  wage 
war  and  to  kill  (4.  i,  2).  The  laborers  may  be  dumb  in  the 
presence  of  the  rich  because  of  their  dependence  and  their 
fear,  but  their  wages,  fraudulently  withheld,  have  a  tongue 
and  cry  out  to  high  heaven  for  vengeance  (5.4).  What  is 
friendship  with  the  world?  It  is  adultery,  James  says 
(4.4).  The  rust  of  unjust  riches  testifies  against  those 
who  have  accumulated  it  and  then  turns  upon  them  and 
eats  their  flesh  like  fire  (5.  3). 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  loi 

James  observed  the  man  who  glanced  at  himself  in  the 
mirror  in  the  morning  and  saw  that  his  face  was  not  clean 
and  who  went  away  and  thought  no  more  about  it  for  that 
whole  day,  and  he  found  in  him  an  illustration  of  the  one 
who  heard  the  word  and  did  not  do  it  (1.23-24).  The 
epistle  is  full  of  these  rhetorical  figures,  and  they  prove  that 
James  was  something  of  a  poet  at  heart,  even  as  Jesus  was. 
He  writes  in  prose,  but  there  is  a  marked  rhythm  in  all  of 
his  speech.  He  has  frequent  alliterations,  reduplicating  let- 
ters and  syllables  and  balancing  clauses  over  against  each 
other.  He  has  an  ear  for  harmony  as  he  has  an  eye  for 
beauty  everywhere. 

6.  Its  Unlikeness  to  Paul.  The  Pauline  epistles  begin 
with  salutations  and  close  with  benedictions.  They  are  filled 
with  autobiographical  touches  and  personal  messages.  No 
one  of  these  things  appears  here.  The  epistle  begins  and  ends 
with  all  abruptness.  It  has  an  address  but  no  thanksgiving. 
There  are  no  personal  messages  and  no  indications  of  any 
intimate  personal  relationship  between  the  author  and  his 
readers.  They  are  his  beloved  brethren.  He  knows  their 
needs  and  their  sins,  but  he  never  may  have  seen  their  faces 
or  have  visited  their  homes.  The  epistle  is  more  like  a 
prophet's  appeal  to  a  nation  than  a  personal  letter.  Paul 
tells  us  much  about  the  work  of  Christ,  but  he  seldom  or 
never  quotes  any  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus.  On  the  contrary, 
James  continually  is  repeating  the  words  of  the  Master  while 
he  tells  us  little  or  nothing  about  his  work.  The  Epistle  of 
James  is  a  short  epistle,  but  it  contains  more  parallels  with 
the  discourses  of  Jesus  than  can  be  found  in  all  the  thirteen 
epistles  of  Paul,  some  of  which  are  three  or  four  times  its 
length. 

7.  Its  Likeness  to  Jesus.  Both  the  substance  of  the 
teaching  and  the  method  of  its  presentation  in  this  epistle 
remind  us  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus.  James  says  less  about 
the  Master  than  any  other  writer  in  the  New  Testament, 


102         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

but  his  speech  is  more  like  that  of  the  Master  than  the 
speech  of  any  one  of  them.  There  are  at  least  ten  parallels 
to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  this  short  epistle,  and  for 
almost  everything  James  has  to  say  we  can  recall  some 
statement  of  Jesus  which  might  have  suggested  it.  When 
the  parallels  fail  at  any  point  we  are  inclined  to  suspect  that 
James  may  be  repeating  some  unrecorded  utterance  of  our 
Lord.  He  seems  absolutely  faithful  to  his  memory  of  his 
brother's  teaching.  He  is  the  servant  of  Jesus  in  all  his  ex- 
hortation and  persuasion. 

J.  H.  Moulton  thought  that  the  epistle  contained  a  con- 
siderable number  of  otherwise  unrecorded  sayings  of  Jesus, 
and  G.  Currie  Martin  suggests  that  originally  it  consisted  of 
a  collection  of  these  Sayings  of  Jesus  with  brief  comments 
upon  them  appended  by  James.  As  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
it  sometimes  is  impossible  to  distinguish  between  the  words 
of  the  Master  and  the  comments  of  the  evangelist,  so  here 
it  is  impossible  now  to  tell  how  much  of  this  epistle  belongs 
to  Jesus  and  how  much  to  James.  The  truths  are  of  the 
same  value  proceeding  from  either  source.  Truth  is  as 
much  truth,  coming  from  the  lips  of  James  as  from  the  lips 
of  Jesus.  Yet  we  would  like  to  know  just  how  much  of  this 
epistle  is  quoted  and  how  much  James  would  feel  was  more 
directly  his  own. 

Did  the  Master  shock  his  disciples'  faith  by  the  loftiness 
of  the  Christian  ideal  he  set  before  them  in  his  great  sermon, 
"Ye  therefore  shall  be  perfect,  as  your  heavenly  Father  is 
perfect"  (Matt.  5.48)?  James  set  the  same  high  standard 
in  the  very  forefront  of  his  epistle,  "Let  patience  have  its 
perfect  work,  that  ye  may  be  perfect  and  entire,  lacking  in 
nothing"  (1.4).  Did  the  Master  say,  "Ask,  and  it  shall  be 
given  you"  (Matt.  7.7)?  James  says,  "If  any  of  you 
lacketh  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  .  .  .  and  it  shall 
be  given  him"  (1.5).  Did  the  Master  add  a  condition  to  his 
sweeping  promise  to  prayer  and  say,  "Whosoever    .     .     . 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  103 

shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart,  but  shall  believe  that  what  he 
saith  cometh  to  pass;  he  shall  have  it"  (Mark  11.23)? 
James  hastens  to  add  the  same  unHmited  and  astonishing 
condition,  "Let  him  ask  in  faith,  nothing  doubting:  for  he 
that  doubteth  is  like  the  surge  of  the  sea  driven  by  the  wind 
and  tossed"  (i.  6). 

Did  the  Master  close  the  great  sermon  with  his  parable 
of  the  wise  man  and  the  foolish  man,  saying,  "Every  one 
therefore  that  heareth  these  words  of  mine,  and  doeth  them, 
shall  be  likened  unto  a  wise  man.  .  .  .  And  every  one 
that  heareth  these  words  of  mine,  and  doeth  them  not,  shall 
be  likened  unto  a  foolish  man"  (Matt.  7.  24-26)  ?  James  is 
much  concerned  about  wisdom  and  therefore  he  exhorts 
his  readers,  "Be  ye  doers  of  the  word,  and  not  hearers  only, 
deluding  your  own  selves"  (i.22).  Had  the  Master  de- 
clared, "If  ye  know  these  things,  blessed  are  ye  if  ye  do 
them"  (John  13.  17)  ?  James  echoes  the  thought  when  he 
says,  "A  doer  that  worketh,  this  man  shall  be  blessed  in  his 
doing"  (1.25). 

Did  the  Master  say  to  his  disciples,  "Blessed  are  ye  poor : 
for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of  God"  (Luke  6.  20)  ?  James  has 
the  same  sympathy  with  the  poor,  and  he  says,  "Hearken, 
my  beloved  brethren,  did  not  God  choose  them  that  are 
poor  as  to  the  world  to  he  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the 
kingdom  which  he  promised  to  them  that  love  him?" 
(2.5.)  Did  the  Master  inveigh  against  the  rich,  and  say, 
"Woe  unto  you  that  are  rich !  for  ye  have  received  your 
consolation.  Woe  unto  you,  ye  that  are  full  now!  for  ye 
shall  hunger.  Woe  unto  you,  ye  that  laugh  now!  for  ye 
shall  mourn  and  weep"  (Luke  6.24-25)?  James  bursts 
forth  into  the  same  invective  and  prophesies  the  same  sad 
reversal  of  fortune,  "Go  to  now,  ye  rich,  weep  and  howl 
for  your  miseries  that  are  coming  upon  you"  (5.1). 
"Cleanse  your  hands,  ye  sinners ;  and  purify  your  hearts, 
ye  double-minded.    Be  afflicted,  and  mourn,  and  weep:  let 


I04         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

your  laughter  be  turned  to  mourning,  and  your  joy  to 
heaviness"  (4.  8,  9). 

Had  Jesus  said,  "Judge,  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged"  (Matt. 
7.1)?  James  repeats  the  exhortation,  "Speak  not  one 
against  another,  brethren.  He  that  .  .  .  judgeth  his 
brother,  .  .  .  judgeth  the  law:  .  .  .  but  who  art 
thou  that  judgeth  thy  neighbor?"  (4.  11,  12).  Had  Jesus 
said,  "Whosoever  shall  humble  himself  shall  be  exalted" 
(Matt.  23.  12)  ?  We  find  the  very  words  in  James,  "Humble 
yourselves  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  exalt  you" 
(4.  10).  Had  Jesus  said,  "I  say  unto  you.  Swear  not  at  all; 
neither  by  the  heaven,  for  it  is  the  throne  of  God;  nor  by 
the  earth,  for  it  is  the  footstool  of  his  feet.  .  .  .  But 
let  your  speech  be,  Yea,  yea ;  Nay,  nay ;  and  whatsoever  is 
more  than  these  is  of  the  evil  one"  (Matt.  5.  34-37)  ?  Here 
in  James  we  come  upon  the  exact  parallel,  "But  above  all 
things,  my  brethren,  swear  not,  neither  by  the  heaven,  nor 
by  the  earth,  nor  by  any  other  oath:  but  let  your  yea  be 
yea,  and  your  nay,  nay;  that  ye  fall  not  under  judgment" 
(5-12). 

We  remember  how  the  Master  began  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  with  the  declaration  that  even  those  who  mourned 
and  were  persecuted  and  reviled  and  reproached  were 
blessed  in  spite  of  all  their  suffering  and  trial.  Then  we 
notice  that  James  begins  his  epistle  with  the  same  paradoxi- 
cal putting  of  the  Christian  faith,  "Count  it  all  joy,  my 
brethren,  when  ye  fall  into  manifold  temptations"  or  trials 
(1.2).  We  remember  how  Jesus  proceeded  in  his  sermon 
to  set  forth  the  spiritual  significance  and  the  assured  per- 
manence of  the  law;  and  we  notice  that  James  treats  the 
law  with  the  same  respect  and  puts  upon  it  the  same  high 
value.  He  calls  it  the  perfect  law  (1.25),  the  royal  law 
(2.8),  the  law  of  liberty  (2.12).  We  remember  what 
Jesus  said  about  forgiving  others  in  order  that  we  ourselves 
may  be  forgiven,  and  we  know  where  James  got  his  au- 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  105 

thority  for  saying,  "Judgment  is  without  mercy  to  him  that 
hath  showed  no  mercy"  (2,  13). 

We  remember  all  that  the  Master  said  about  good  trees 
and  corrupt  trees  being  known  by  their  fruits,  "Do  men 
gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles?"  (Matt.  7.  16- 
20.)  Then  in  the  epistle  of  James  we  find  a  like  question, 
"Can  a  fig  tree,  my  brethren,  yield  olives,  or  a  vine  figs?" 
(3.  12.)  We  remember  that  the  Master  said,  "Know  ye 
that  he  is  nigh,  even  at  the  doors"  (Matt.  24.33).  ^^ 
are  not  surprised  to  find  the  statement  here  in  James,  "Be- 
hold, the  judge  standeth  before  the  doors"  (5.9).  These 
reminiscences  of  the  sayings  of  the  Master  meet  us  on 
every  page.  It  may  be  that  there  are  many  more  of  them 
than  we  are  able  to  identify.  Their  number  is  sufficiently 
large,  however,  to  show  us  that  James  is  steeped  in  the 
truths  taught  by  Jesus,  and  not  only  their  substance  but 
their  phraseology  constantly  reminds  us  of  him, 

IV.  Date  of  the  Epistle 

There  are  those  who  think  that  the  Epistle  of  James  is 
the  oldest  epistle  in  the  New  Testament.  Among  those  who 
favor  an  early  date  are  Erdmann,  Huther,  Kriiger,  Mayor, 
Plumptre,  Alford,  Adeney,  Gibson,  Bartlet,  Carr,  Salmon, 
Stanley,  Stevens,  Renan,  Weiss,  Zahn,  Beyschlag,  Belser, 
Bunsen,  Hofmann,  Lechler,  Mangold,  Ritschl,  Neander, 
Schneckenburger,  Theile,  Thiersch,  and  Dods.  The 
reasons  assigned  for  this  conclusion  are  (i)  the  general 
Judaic  tone  of  the  epistle  which  seems  to  antedate  the  ad- 
mission of  the  Gentiles  in  any  alarming  numbers  into  the 
church;  but  since  the  epistle  is  addressed  only  to  Jews 
why  should  the  Gentiles  be  mentioned  in  it,  whatever  its 
date?  and  (2)  the  fact  that  Paul  and  Peter  are  supposed  to 
have  quoted  from  James  in  their  writing;  but  this  matter 
of  quotation  is  always  an  uncertain  one,  and  it  has  been 
argued  ably  that  the  quotation  has  been  the  other  way  about. 


io6         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Others  think  that  the  epistle  was  written  toward  the  close 
of  James's  life.  Among  these  are  Bartmann,  Barth,  Bleek, 
Comely,  Felten,  Gurney,  Hort,  Hug,  Jacoby,  Mill,  Sabatier, 
Scholten,  Trenkle,  Weiffenbach,  Kern,  Wiesinger,  Schmidt, 
Briickner,  Wordsworth,  and  Farrar.  These  argue  (i)  that 
the  epistle  gives  evidence  of  a  considerable  lapse  of  time  in 
the  history  of  the  church,  sufficient  to  allow  of  a  declension 
from  the  spiritual  fervor  of  Pentecost  and  the  establishment 
of  distinctions  among  the  brethren ;  but  any  of  the  sins 
mentioned  in  the  epistle  in  all  probability  could  have  been 
found  in  the  church  in  any  decade  of  its  history.  (2)  James 
has  a  position  of  established  authority,  and  those  to  whom 
he  writes  are  not  recent  converts  but  members  in  long  stand- 
ing; but  the  position  of  James  may  have  been  established 
from  a  very  early  date,  and  in  an  encyclical  of  this  sort  we 
could  not  expect  any  indication  of  shorter  or  longer  mem- 
bership in  the  church.  Doubtless  some  of  those  addressed 
were  recent  converts  while  others  may  have  been  members 
for  many  years.  (3)  There  are  references  to  persecutions 
and  trials  which  fit  the  later  rather  than  the  earlier  date; 
but  all  which  is  said  on  this  subject  might  be  suitable  in  any 
period  of  the  presidency  of  James  at  Jerusalem.  H  it  is 
urged  (4)  that  there  are  indications  of  a  long  and  disap- 
pointing delay  in  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord  in  the  re- 
peated exhortation  to  patience  in  waiting  for  it,  it  is  urged 
on  the  other  hand  that  James  says,  "The  coming  of  the 
Lord  is  at  hand,"  and  "The  judge  standeth  before  the  doors" 
(5.8-9).  The  same  passage  is  cited  in  proof  of  a  belief 
that  the  immediate  appearance  of  the  Lord  was  expected,  as 
in  the  earliest  period  of  the  church,  and  in  proof  that  there 
had  been  a  disappointment  of  this  earlier  belief  and  that  it 
had  been  succeeded  by  a  feeling  that  there  was  need  of  pa- 
tience in  waiting  for  the  coming  so  long  delayed. 

It  seems  clear  to  us  that  there  are  no  decisive  proofs  in 
favor  of  any  definite  date  for  the  epistle.    It  must  have  been 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  107 

written  before  the  martyrdom  of  James  in  the  year  A.  D. 
63,  and  some  time  during  his  presidency  over  the  church  at 
Jerusalem;  but  there  is  nothing  to  warrant  us  in  coming 
to  any  more  definite  conclusion.  Davidson,  Hilgenfeld, 
Baur,  Zeller,  Volkmar,  Hausrath,  Bruckner,  Von  Soden, 
Jiilicher,  Harnack,  Bacon,  McGiffert,  Reville,  Peake,  Wrede, 
and  others  date  the  epistle  variously  in  the  post-Pauline 
period,  from  A.  D.  69-70  to  140-150.  The  arguments  for  any 
of  these  dates  fall  far  short  of  proof,  rest  largely  if  not 
wholly  upon  conjectures  and  presuppositions,  and  of  course 
are  inconsistent  with  any  belief  in  the  authorship  by  James, 
the  brother  of  Jesus. 

V.  History  of  the  Epistle 

Eusebius  classed  the  Epistle  of  James  among  those  whose 
authenticity  was  disputed  by  some.  "James  is  said  to  be 
the  author  of  the  first  of  the  so-called  catholic  epistles. 
But  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  is  disputed ;  at  least,  not  many 
of  the  ancients  have  mentioned  it,  as  is  the  case  likewise 
with  the  epistle  that  bears  the  name  of  Jude,  which  is  also 
one  of  the  seven  so-called  catholic  epistles.  Nevertheless, 
we  know  that  these  also,  with  the  rest,  have  been  read  pub- 
licly in  most  churches.''^^  Eusebius  himself,  however, 
quotes  James  4.  11  as  Scripture  and  James  5.  13  as  spoken 
by  the  holy  apostle.  Personally  he  does  not  seem  disposed 
to  question  the  genuineness  of  the  epistle. 

There  are  parallels  in  phraseology  which  make  it  almost 
certain  that  the  epistle  is  quoted  in  Clement  of  Rome  in  the 
first  century  as  well  as  in  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin  Martyr, 
the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  Irenseus,  and  Hermas  in  the  second 
century.  It  is  omitted  in  the  canonical  list  of  the  Muratorian 
fragment,  and  was  not  included  in  the  Old  Latin  version. 
Origen  seems  to  be  the  first  writer  to  quote  the  epistle  ex- 

»  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  ii,,  23. 


io8         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

plicitly  as  Scripture  and  to  assert  that  it  was  written  by 
James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord.  It  appears  in  the  Peshito 
version  which  omitted  Second  Peter,  Second  and  Third  John, 
and  Jude,  but  seems  to  have  had  no  scruple  about  James ;  and 
it  was  generally  recognized  in  the  East.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Ephraem  of  Edessa,  Didymus  of 
Alexandria  received  it  as  canonical.  The  Third  Council  of 
Carthage  in  397  finally  settled  its  status  for  the  Western 
church  and  from  that  date  in  both  the  East  and  the  West 
its  canonicity  was  unquestioned  until  the  time  of  the  Refor- 
mation. 

Erasmus  and  Cajetan  revived  the  old  doubts  concerning 
it.  Luther  thought  it  contradicted  Paul  and  therefore  ban- 
ished it  to  the  appendix  of  his  Bible.  "James,"  he  says,  "has 
aimed  to  refute  those  who  relied  on  faith  without  works,  and 
is  too  weak  for  his  task  in  mind,  understanding  and  words, 
mutilates  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  directly  contradicts  Paul 
and  all  Scripture,  seeking  to  accomplish  by  enforcing  the 
law  what  the  apostles  successfully  effect  by  love.  There- 
fore I  will  not  place  his  epistle  in  my  Bible  among  the  proper 
leading  books. "^^  He  declared  it  was  a  downright  strawy 
epistle  as  compared  with  such  as  those  to  the  Romans  and 
to  the  Galatians,  and  it  had  no  real  evangelical  character. 
This  judgment  of  Luther  is  a  very  hasty  and  regrettable  one. 
The  modern  church  has  refused  to  accept  it,  and  it  is  con- 
ceded very  generally  now  that  Paul  and  James  are  in  per- 
fect agreement  with  each  other,  though  their  presentation 
of  the  same  truth  from  opposite  points  of  view  brings  them 
into  apparent  contradiction. 

Paul  says,  "By  grace  have  ye  been  saved  through  faith; 
.  .  .  not  of  works,  that  no  man  should  glory"  (Eph. 
2.8,  9).  "We  reckon,  therefore,  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  apart  from  the  works  of  the  law"  (Rom.  3.  28).    James 


»  Werke,  xiv,  148. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  109 

says:  "Faith,  if  it  have  not  works,  is  dead  in  itself"  (2.  17). 
"Ye  see  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  only  by 
faith"  (2.24).  With  these  passages  before  him  Luther 
said:  "Many  have  toiled  to  reconcile  Paul  with  James, 
.  .  .  but  to  no  purpose,  for  they  are  contrary.  'Faith 
justifies';  'Faith  does  not  justify';  I  will  pledge  my  life  that 
no  one  can  reconcile  those  propositions ;  and  if  he  succeeds 
he  may  call  me  a  fool."^'^  It  would  be  difficult  to  prove 
Luther  a  fool  if  Paul  and  James  were  using  these  words 
"faith,"  "works,"  and  "justification"  in  the  same  sense,  or 
even  if  either  were  writing  with  full  consciousness  of  what 
the  other  had  written.  They  both  use  Abraham  for  an  ex- 
ample, James  of  justification  by  works  and  Paul  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith.    How  can  that  be  possible  ? 

With  the  unhesitating  faith  characteristic  of  our  fathers 
Dr.  Hodge  is  content  to  say,  "It  is  one  of  the  great  beauties 
of  the  Scriptures,  that  the  sacred  writers,  in  the  calm  con- 
sciousness of  truth,  in  the  use  of  popular  as  distinguished 
from  philosophical  language,  affirm  and  deny  the  same  ver- 
bal proposition,  assured  that  the  consistency  and  intent  of 
their  statements  will  make  their  way  to  the  heart  and  con- 
science."^®  However,  it  is  a  little  difficult  for  most  people 
to  see  how  both  the  affirmative  and  the  negative  of  a  single 
proposition  can  be  maintained  as  true.  Possibly  one  or  two 
illustrations  will  help  us  at  this  point. 

Did  not  the  Master  say  at  one  time,  "If  I  bear  witness  of 
myself,  my  witness  is  not  true"  (John  5.  31)  ?  Did  not  the 
Master  say  at  another  time,  "Even  if  I  bear  witness  of  my- 
self, my  witness  is  true"  (John  8.  14)  ?  Could  there  be  a 
flatter  contradiction  than  that  seems  to  be  ?  The  conditional 
sentence  is  the  same  in  the  two  passages,  "If  I  bear  witness 
of  myself,"  and  then  the  two  conclusions  are  the  exact  op- 
posites  of  each  other — "my  witness  is  true,"  and  "my  wit- 

"  Colloquia,  ii,  202. 

»  Hodge,  on  i  Cor.  8.  1. 


no         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

ness  is  not  true."  Which  represents  the  truth?  Can  both 
be  true?  Would  not  Luther  have  been  warranted  in  say- 
ing, "If  any  man  can  reconcile  such  absolutely  contradic- 
tory propositions,  he  may  call  me  a  fool"?  Yet  both  those 
statements  were  made  by  Him  who  said,  "I  am  the  truth," 
and  all  of  whose  words  we  believe  to  have  been  the  words 
of  absolute  truth  and  life.  If  Jesus  could  flatly  contradict 
himself  in  this  manner  and  yet  be  absolutely  truthful  in 
each  of  his  statements,  it  ought  to  be  clear  that  James  and 
Paul  may  seem  flatly  to  contradict  each  other  and  yet  both 
may  be  absolutely  warranted  in  their  statements. 

Robertson  of  Brighton  has  suggested  this  illustration.^^ 
There  is  a  severe  thunderstorm  with  terrific  rolls  of  thunder 
and  blinding  flashes  of  lightning  and  a  house  is  struck  and 
several  people  are  killed.  An  intelligent  child  asks  his  father 
what  caused  the  destruction  of  property  and  life  and  he  is 
told,  "It  was  not  the  thunder  which  did  it.  The  destruction 
was  caused  by  lightning  alone,  without  thunder."  Then  if 
the  child  asks,  "Is  all  lightning  thus  destructive  ?"  the  father 
answers,  "No,  destruction  is  not  caused  by  lightning  alone, 
without  thunder."  What  does  he  mean?  Those  two  state- 
ments seem  flatly  to  contradict  each  other.  He  means  that 
sheet  lightning  is  harmless,  the  summer  lightning  which 
plays  about  the  horizon  at  the  close  of  a  sultry  day.  It 
alarms  no  one,  for  everybody  knows  that  it  is  as  harm- 
less as  it  is  noiseless.  Destruction  is  not  caused  by  lightning 
alone,  without  thunder.  Yet  when  things  or  persons  are 
destroyed  in  the  thunderstorm  we  say,  and  say  rightly,  that 
the  destruction  is  caused  by  the  lightning  alone,  without  any 
aid  from  the  thunder.  The  noisy  thunder  is  harmless,  the 
silent  lightning  does  the  damage  in  each  case.  There  are 
two  propositions  which  seem  to  contradict  each  other  and 
yet  we  see  at  once  that  each  of  them  is  true. 


*•  Life  of  Robertson,  vol.  ii,  p.  64. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  iii 

Let  us  suppose  that  James  and  Paul  had  been  present 
when  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy  had  been  brought  to  Jesus 
by  his  four  friends  who,  when  they  could  not  come  near  the 
Master  because  of  the  crowd,  had  carried  him  to  the  roof 
of  the  house,  and  when  they  had  broken  it  up  had  lowered 
him  to  the  Master's  feet,  where  the  man  was  cured.  What 
would  James  have  said  about  it?  Possibly  this:  "These  men 
had  faith  that  Jesus  could  cure  their  friend;  but  that  faith 
never  would  have  saved  him.  They  had  to  carry  him  to  the 
place  where  Jesus  was ;  and  there,  if  they  had  been  content 
to  remain  on  the  outskirts  of  the  crowd  while  Jesus  was 
talking,  their  faith  would  have  been  of  no  avail.  Faith 
without  works  is  dead.  They  had  to  go  to  work  and  carry 
their  friend  to  the  housetop,  and  there  they  had  to  work  to 
break  up  the  roof  and  then  they  had  to  work  to  lower  their 
friend  to  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  that  was  what  brought  about 
the  cure."  If  James  had  said  that,  he  probably  would  have 
been  right  in  his  conclusion. 

Possibly  Paul  would  have  reported  differently.  He  might 
have  said :  "Jesus  saw  their  faith  and  first  forgave  the  man's 
sins  and  then  cured  his  palsy.  It  is  to  faith  alone  that  for- 
giveness is  guaranteed  and  it  is  to  faith  alone  that  such  bless- 
ings are  given.  It  was  faith  which  brought  these  men  to 
Jesus.  It  was  faith  which  drove  them  to  the  roof.  It  was 
faith  which  led  them  to  break  up  the  tiling  and  lower  the 
couch  to  the  Saviour's  feet.  It  was  faith,  and  faith  alone, 
which  won  the  victory."  If  Paul  had  said  that,  we  prob- 
ably would  agree  that  he  was  right  in  his  conclusions.  These 
two  men  may  seem  to  contradict  each  other ;  but  they  simply 
are  representing  different  points  of  view  and  they  are  using 
the  same  words  with  somewhat  different  connotations  in 
mind  as  they  use  them. 

(i)  The  faith  meant  by  James  is  the  faith  of  a  dead  ortho- 
doxy, an  intellectual  assent  to  the  dogmas  of  the  church 
which  does  not  result  in  any  practical  righteousness  in  life. 


112         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

such  a  faith  as  the  demons  have  when  they  believe  in  the 
being  of  God  and  simply  tremble  before  him.  The  faith 
meant  by  Paul  is  intellectual  and  moral  and  spiritual,  affects 
the  whole  man,  and  leads  him  into  conscious  and  vital  union 
and  communion  with  God.  It  is  not  the  faith  of  demons; 
it  is  the  faith  which  redeems. 

(2)  Again,  the  works  meant  by  Paul  are  the  works  of  a 
dead  legalism,  the  works  done  under  a  sense  of  compulsion 
or  a  feeling  of  duty,  the  works  done  in  obedience  to  a  law 
which  is  a  taskmaster,  the  works  of  a  slave  and  not  of  a  son. 
These  dead  works,  he  declares,  never  can  give  life.  The 
works  meant  by  James  are  the  works  of  a  believer,  the  fruit 
of  the  faith  and  love  born  in  every  believer's  heart  and  mani- 
fest in  every  believer's  life.  The  possession  of  faith  will 
insure  this  evidence  in  his  daily  conduct  and  conversation; 
and  without  this  evidence  the  mere  profession  of  faith  will 
not  save  him. 

(3)  The  justification  meant  by  Paul  is  the  initial  justifica- 
tion of  the  Christian  life.  No  doing  of  meritorious  deeds 
will  make  a  man  worthy  of  salvation.  He  comes  into  the 
kingdom  not  on  the  basis  of  merit  but  on  the  basis  of  grace. 
The  sinner  is  converted  not  by  doing  anything  but  by  be- 
lieving on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  approaches  the  thresh- 
old of  the  kingdom  and  he  finds  that  he  has  no  coin  which 
is  current  there.  He  cannot  buy  his  way  in  by  good  works ; 
he  must  accept  salvation  by  faith,  as  the  gift  of  God's  free 
grace.  The  justification  meant  by  James  is  the  justification 
of  any  after  moment  in  the  Christian  life,  or  the  final  justi- 
fication before  the  judgment  throne.  Good  works  are  in- 
evitable in  the  Christian  life.  There  can  be  no  assurance  of 
salvation  without  them. 

(4)  Paul  is  looking  at  the  root;  James  is  looking  at  the 
fruit.  Paul  is  talking  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
life ;  James  is  talking  about  its  continuance  and  consumma- 
tion.   With  Paul  the  works  he  renounces  precede  faith  and 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  113 

are  dead  works.     With  James  the  faith  he  denounces  is 
apart  from  works  and  is  a  dead  faith. 

(5)  Paul  believes  in  the  works  of  godliness  just  as  much 
as  James.  He  prays  that  God  may  estabUsh  the  Thessa- 
lonians  in  every  good  work  (2  Thess.  2.  17).  He  writes  to 
the  Corinthians  that  God  is  able  to  make  all  grace  abound 
unto  them ;  that  they,  having  always  all  sufficiency  in  every- 
thing, may  abound  unto  every  good  work  (2  Cor.  9.  8).  He 
declares  to  the  Ephesians  that  we  are  his  workmanship, 
created  in  Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God  afore 
prepared  that  we  should  walk  in  them  (Eph.  2.  10).  He 
makes  a  formal  statement  of  his  faith  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  God  "will  render  to  every  man  according  to  his 
works :  to  them  that  by  patience  in  well-doing  seek  for  glory 
and  honor  and  incorruption,  eternal  life :  but  unto  them  that 
are  factious,  and  obey  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteous- 
ness, shall  be  wrath  and  indignation,  tribulation  and  anguish, 
upon  every  soul  of  man  that  worketh  evil,  of  the  Jew  first, 
and  also  of  the  Greek;  but  glory  and  honor  and  peace  to 
every  man  that  worketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to 
the  Greek"  (Rom,  2.6-10).  This  is  the  final  justification 
discussed  by  James,  and  it  is  just  as  clearly  a  judgment  by 
works  with  Paul  as  with  him. 

(6)  On  the  other  hand,  James  believes  in  saving  faith 
as  well  as  Paul.  He  begins  with  the  statement  that  the 
proving  of  our  faith  works  patience  and  brings  perfection 
(1.3,  4).  He  declares  that  the  prayer  of  faith  will  bring 
the  coveted  wisdom  (1.6).  He  describes  the  Christian 
profession  as  a  holding  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Lord  of  glory  (2.  i).  He  says  that  the  poor  as  to  the 
world  are  rich  in  faith,  and  therefore  heirs  of  the  kingdom 
(2.  5).  He  quotes  the  passage  from  Genesis,  "Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  reckoned  unto  him  for  righteous- 
ness" (2.  23),  and  he  explicitly  asserts  that  Abraham's  faith 
wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  his  faith  made 


114         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

perfect  (2,22).  The  faith  mentioned  in  all  these  passages 
is  the  faith  of  the  professing  believer;  it  is  not  the  faith 
which  the  sinner  exercises  in  accepting  salvation. 

James  and  Paul  are  at  one  in  declaring  that  faith  and 
works  must  go  hand  in  hand  in  the  Christian  life,  and  that 
in  the  Christian's  experience  both  faith  without  works  is 
dead  and  works  without  faith  are  dead  works.  They  both 
believe  in  faith  working  through  love  as  that  which  alone 
will  avail  in  Christ  Jesus  (Gal.  5.6).  Fundamentally  they 
agree.  Superficially  they  seem  to  contradict  each  other. 
That  is  because  they  are  talking  about  different  things  and 
using  the  same  terms  with  different  meanings  for  those 
terms  in  mind. 

VI.  The  Message  of  the  Epistle  to  Our  Times 

I.  To  the  Pietists.  There  are  those  who  talk  holiness 
and  are  hypocrites,  those  who  make  profession  of  perfect 
love  and  yet  cannot  live  peaceably  with  their  brethren,  those 
who  are  full  of  pious  phraseology  but  who  fail  in  practical 
philanthropy.  This  epistle  was  written  for  them.  It  may 
not  give  them  much  comfort,  but  it  ought  to  give  them  much 
profit.  The  mysticism  which  contents  itself  with  pious 
frames  and  phrases  and  comes  short  in  actual  sacrifice  and 
devoted  service  will  find  its  antidote  here.  The  antinomian- 
ism  which  professes  great  confidence  in  free  grace  but  does 
not  recognize  the  necessity  for  corresponding  purity  of  life 
needs  to  ponder  the  practical  wisdom  of  this  epistle.  The 
quietists  who  are  satisfied  to  sit  and  sing  themselves  away 
to  everlasting  bliss  ought  to  read  this  epistle  until  they  catch 
its  bugle  note  of  inspiration  to  present  activity  and  continu- 
ous good  deeds.  All  who  are  long  on  theory  and  short  in 
practice  ought  to  steep  themselves  in  the  spirit  of  James; 
and  since  there  are  such  people  in  every  community  and  in 
every  age  the  message  of  the  epistle  never  will  grow  old. 
We  read  in  John  Wesley's  Journal,  "Having  gone  through 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES  115 

the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Epistles  of  Saint  John,  I 
began  that  of  Saint  James,  that  those  who  had  already- 
learned  the  true  nature  of  inward  holiness  might  be  more 
fully  instructed  in  outward  holiness,  without  which  also  we 
cannot  see  the  Lord."^^ 

2.  To  the  Sociologists.  The  sociological  problems  are  to 
the  front  to-day.  The  old  prophets  were  social  reformers, 
and  James  is  most  hke  them  in  the  New  Testament.  Much 
that  he  says  is  applicable  to  present-day  conditions.  He  lays 
down  the  right  principles  for  practical  philanthropy  and  the 
proper  relationships  between  master  and  man  and  between 
man  and  man.  If  the  teachings  of  this  epistle  were  put  into 
practice  throughout  the  church,  it  would  mean  the  revital- 
ization  of  Christianity,  It  would  prove  that  the  Christian 
religion  was  practical  and  workable  and  it  would  go  far  to 
establish  the  final  brotherhood  of  man  in  the  service  of 
God. 

3.  To  the  Students  of  the  Life  and  Character  of  Jesus. 
The  life  of  our  Lord  is  the  most  important  Hfe  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  race.  It  always  will  be  a  subject  of  the  deepest 
interest  and  study.  Modern  research  has  penetrated  every 
contributory  realm  for  any  added  light  upon  the  heredity 
and  environment  of  Jesus.  The  people  and  the  land,  archae- 
ology and  contemporary  history  have  been  cultivated  inten- 
sively and  extensively  for  any  modicum  of  knowledge  they 
might  add  to  our  store  of  information  concerning  the 
Christ.  We  suggest  that  there  is  a  field  here  to  which  suf- 
ficient attention  has  not  yet  been  given.  James  was  the 
brother  of  the  Lord.  His  epistle  tells  us  much  about  him- 
self. On  the  supposition  that  he  did  not  exhort  others  to 
be  what  he  would  not  furnish  them  an  example  in  being, 
we  read  in  this  epistle  his  own  character  writ  large.  He  was 
like  his  brother  in  so  many  things.     As  we  study  the  Hfe 


«"  The  Journal  of  John  Wesley,  October  9,  1739. 


Ii6         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

and  character  of  James  we  come  to  know  more  about  the 
life  and  character  of  Jesus. 

Jesus  and  James  had  the  same  mother.  From  her  they 
had  a  common  inheritance.  As  far  as  they  reproduced  their 
mother's  characteristics  they  were  ahke.  They  had  the 
same  home  training.  As  far  as  the  father  could  succeed  in 
putting  the  impress  of  his  own  personality  upon  the  boys 
they  would  be  alike.  It  is  noticeable  in  this  connection 
that  Joseph  is  said  in  the  Gospel  to  have  been  a  just  man 
(Matt.  I.  19),  and  that  James  came  to  be  known  through  all 
the  early  church  as  James  the  Just,  and  that  in  his  epistle 
he  may  be  giving  this  title  to  his  brother  Jesus  when  he  says 
of  the  unrighteous  rich  of  Jerusalem,  "Ye  have  condemned, 
ye  have  killed  the  just  one"  (5.6).  Joseph  was  just,  and 
James  was  just,  and  Jesus  was  just.  The  brothers  were 
alike,  and  they  were  like  the  father  in  this  respect.  The 
two  brothers  seem  to  think  alike  and  talk  ahke  to  a  most 
remarkable  degree.  They  represent  the  same  home  sur- 
roundings and  human  environment,  the  same  religious  train- 
ing and  inherited  characteristics.  Surely,  then,  all  we  learn 
concerning  James  will  help  us  the  better  to  understand  Jesus. 

They  are  alike  in  their  poetic  insight  and  practical  wisdom. 
Both  are  fond  of  figurative  speech,  and  it  always  seems 
natural  and  unforced.  The  discourses  of  Jesus  are  filled 
with  birds  and  flowers  and  winds  and  clouds  and  all  the 
sights  and  sounds  of  rural  life  in  Palestine.  The  Epistle  of 
James  abounds  in  references  to  the  field  flowers  and  the 
meadow  grass  and  the  salt  fountains  and  the  burning  wind 
and  the  early  and  the  latter  rain.  Nearly  every  one  of  the 
natural  phenomena  mentioned  by  James  is  found  also  in  the 
sayings  of  Jesus — the  birds  and  flowers,  the  burning  wood 
and  the  surging  sea,  the  fig  tree  and  the  vine,  the  moth  and 
the  rust  and  the  rain.  These  vivid  character  vignettes  in  the 
Epistle  of  James  suggest  that  he  might  easily  have  developed 
them  into  parables  like  those  of  the  Lord.    His  denunciation 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JAMES,  117 

of  the  rich  employers  and  oppressors  recalls  the  terrible 
indictment  of  the  Pharisees  by  the  Master  toward  the  end 
of  his  ministry.  The  two  brothers  are  alike  in  mental  atti- 
tude and  in  spiritual  alertness. 

They  have  much  in  common  in  the  material  equipment  of 
their  thought.  James  was  well  versed  in  the  apocryphal 
hterature.  May  we  not  reasonably  conclude  that  Jesus  was 
just  as  familiar  with  these  books  as  he?  James  seems  to 
have  acquired  a  comparative  mastery  of  the  Greek  language 
and  to  have  had  some  acquaintance  with  the  Greek  phil- 
osophy and  poetry.  Mayor  calls  our  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  words  ndoa  66ocg  dyadr)  Kai  ndv  dwg-qjia  riXeiov  make 
a  hexameter  line,  with  a  short  syllable  lengthened  by  the 
metrical  stress,  and  he  says  that  he  thinks  Ewald  is  right 
in  considering  it  to  be  a  quotation  from  some  Hellenistic 
poem.^i  Would  not  Jesus  have  been  as  well  furnished  in 
these  things  as  James? 

What  was  the  character  of  James?  All  tradition  testifies 
to  his  personal  purity  and  persistent  devotion,  commanding 
the  reverence  and  respect  of  all  who  knew  him.  As  we 
trace  the  various  elements  of  his  character  manifesting  them- 
selves in  his  anxieties  and  exhortations  in  this  epistle,  we 
find  rising  before  us  the  image  of  Jesus  as  well  as  the  por- 
trait of  James.  He  is  a  single-minded  man,  steadfast  in 
faith  and  patient  in  trials.  He  is  slow  to  wrath  but  very 
quick  to  detect  any  sins  of  speech  and  hypocrisy  of  life. 
He  is  full  of  humility  but  ready  to  champion  the  cause  of 
the  oppressed  and  the  poor.  He  hates  all  insincerity  and  he 
loves  wisdom,  and  he  believes  in  prayer  and  practices  it 
in  reference  to  both  temporal  and  spiritual  good.  He  be- 
lieves in  absolute  equality  in  the  house  of  God.  He  is  op- 
posed to  pew  rents  or  anything  else  which  will  establish  any 
distinctions  between  brethren  in  their  places  of  worship. 


"  Mayor,  op.  dt.,  p.  57. 


u8         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

He  believes  in  practical  philanthropy.  He  believes  that  the 
right  sort  of  religion  will  lead  a  man  to  visit  the  fatherless 
and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself  unspotted 
from  the  world.  A  pure  religion  will  mean  a  pure  man.  He 
believes  that  we  ought  to  practice  all  we  preach.  As  we  study 
these  characteristics  and  opinions  of  the  younger  brother 
does  not  the  image  of  his  and  our  Elder  Brother  grow  ever 
clearer  before  our  eyes  ? 


PART  III 
THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   PETER 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER 

I.  The  Apostle  Peter 

1.  A  Likable  Man.  Everybody  liked  Peter.  Jesus  liked 
him.  His  associates  liked  him.  The  early  church  liked  him. 
We  like  him;  because  he  is  so  much  like  us.  Peter  had 
neither  Paul's  head  nor  John's  heart  nor  James'  saintliness 
and  stability ;  but  we  venture  to  say  that  he  was  at  once  the 
most  heady  and  hearty  and  human  of  all  the  apostles.  He 
gave  so  much  clearer  evidence  of  all  the  frailties  which  flesh 
and  blood  are  heir  to,  and  he  was  a  so  much  better  example 
of  growth  in  grace  than  any  or  all  of  his  associates.^  If 
Paul  ever  grew  in  grace  after  his  conversion,  there  is  no 
very  clear  evidence  of  it  either  in  his  books  or  his  biography, 
his  letters  or  his  life.  As  his  theology  seems  to  have  been 
formulated  once  and  for  all  after  his  return  from  Arabia, 
so  his  religious  life  seems  to  have  maintained  its  high  stand- 
ard without  wavering  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 
John  did  grow  in  grace ;  but  John  always  was  one  of  those 
gifted,  sensitive,  intuitive  natures  who  by  virtue  of  their 
natural  endowment  stand  apart  from  the  common  mass  of 
men.  On  the  contrary,  Peter  was  so  human,  so  like  the  rest 
of  us  in  everything,  that  his  history  comes  nearer  our  own 
and  the  glimpses  we  have  of  his  spiritual  experience  seem 
like  ghmpses  into  the  depths  of  our  own  hearts.  His 
biography  more  easily  than  that  of  the  other  apostles  can 
be  rewritten  as  the  Autobiography  of  the  Common  Man. 
Niemeyer  said  it  long  ago,  "In  Peter  is  more  of  human 
nature  than  in  any  other  of  the  apostles."^ 

2.  A  Hasty  Man.  He  was  a  heady,  hasty  man.     Head- 

*  Compare  Hayes,  Great  Characters  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  45-48. 

*  Niemeyer,  Charakteristik  der  Bibel,  1830. 

121 


122         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

strong  and  headlong  he  went  about  the  task  set  before  him, 
without  waiting  to  plan  out  methods  of  procedure  and 
without  any  calculation  of  consequences.  If  Peter  had  Hved 
in  these  days,  he  would  have  had  an  automobile  as  he  went 
here  and  there  and  everywhere  about  his  apostoHc  business, 
simply  because  he  would  have  found  it  the  most  rapid  means 
of  locomotion  in  making  a  large  number  of  short  trips ;  and 
even  after  he  had  learned  to  manage  the  thing  like  a  profes- 
sional he  would  have  been  a  public  menace  every  day  of 
his  life,  simply  because  of  his  failure  to  look  ahead  a  little 
and  his  proneness  to  rush  on,  regardless  of  any  obstacle  in 
his  way.  No  man  ever  had  walked  on  the  water  before, 
but  Peter  jumped  over  the  side  of  the  boat  to  do  it  without 
stopping  to  think  that  it  was  impossible.  The  other  disciples 
asked  whether  they  should  defend  Jesus  and,  while  they 
were  asking,  Peter  had  drawn  his  sword  and  struck  off  the 
right  ear  of  the  servant  of  the  high  priest.^  Peter  was  the 
sort  of  man  who  would  set  the  whole  world  on  fire  while 
some  other  people  would  be  getting  ready  to  light  a  match.^ 
He  went  ahead  and  did  the  thing,  and  found  out  afterward 
whether  it  was  according  to  orders  or  contrary  to  them. 

He  was  a  plunger  in  everything.  He  went  in  head  over 
heels  and  he  was  careless  enough  oftentimes  whether  it  was 
his  head  or  simply  his  heels  which  directed  his  course  for 
him.  When  John  said  that  the  resurrected  Lord  was  stand- 
ing on  the  beach,  Peter  could  not  wait  for  the  slow  progress 
of  the  ship  dragging  its  heavy  net.  He  plunged  into  the 
waters  and  waded  or  swam  to  the  Master's  side.^  He  knew 
that  it  was  as  much  as  his  Ufe  was  worth  to  draw  his  sword 
in  the  garden,  but  he  never  stopped  to  think  of  that.  He 
knew  that  he  was  risking  everything  again  when  he  alone 
of  the  fugitive  band  of  disciples  followed  Jesus  into  the 

'  Luke  22.  49,  50. 

*  Compare  Hayes,  Great  Characters  of  the  New  Testament,  pp. 
45,46.  6John2i.  7. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  123 

court  of  the  trial.  He  was  ready  to  take  the  plunge  regard- 
less of  any  personal  consequences  it  might  involve.  He  was 
reckless  and  rash  to  a  degree.  He  had  so  little  sense  about 
some  things  that  we  all  have  a  fellow-feeling  for  him. 

(i)  Peter  was  an  impulsive  and  impetuous  man.  He  was 
the  creature  of  the  moment.  He  acted  without  reflection. 
Did  Jesus  ask,  "Who  say  ye  that  I  am?"  The  others  were 
ready  to  think  about  it  a  while  and  then  more  carefully  and 
judicially  to  formulate  a  creed;  but  all  of  Peter's  warm 
affection  and  admiration  for  his  Lord  surged  forth  like  an 
outburst  of  the  Old  Faithful  geyser  in  Yellowstone  Park. 
He  broke  out  in  the  first  moment,  "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God."^  It  was  "the  Great  Confession," 
and  it  told  the  truth,  and  it  won  the  warmest  commendation 
of  the  Master.  A  few  moments  later  Jesus  was  foretelling 
his  sufferings  and  crucifixion  for  the  first  time;  and  Peter 
with  the  same  impulsiveness  burst  out  into  hot  remonstrance, 
"Be  it  far  from  thee.  Lord :  This  shall  never  be  unto  thee."''' 
Jesus  probably  knew  what  he  was  talking  about,  and  if  he 
were  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  who  was  Peter 
to  take  him  to  task  and  to  rebuke  him  before  all  the  dis- 
ciples? Did  he  really  believe  his  great  confession  or  did  he 
really  think  that  he  knew  better  than  the  Master  did  what 
ought  to  be  and  what  would  be?  Yes,  he  believed  all  he 
had  said  about  his  Master,  and  he  knew  that  the  Master 
knew  more  and  better  than  he ;  but  he  acted  on  the  impulse 
of  the  moment  and  without  thinking,  as  we  so  often  do.  He 
got  his  just  deserts  in  "the  Great  Rebuke."  Was  any 
mortal  ever  more  severely  chastised  in  words  than  Peter 
was  when  Jesus  said  to  him,  "Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan: 
thou  art  a  stumbUng-block  unto  me:  for  thou  mindest  not 
the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men"  ?s 

Impulsiveness  sometimes  leads  to  great  achievement  as  in 


•  Matt.  16.  16.  7  Matt.  16.  22.  » Matt.  16.  23. 


124         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

the  great  commendation  which  followed  the  great  confes- 
sion. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  just  as  likely  to  lead  to  great 
disaster  as  in  the  great  rebuke  which  followed  Peter's  im- 
petuous interference  in  the  Master's  affairs.  Peter  might 
be  all  right  one  moment  and  all  wrong  the  next  moment. 
His  nature  was  something  like  that  Sea  of  GaHlee  upon 
which  he  had  spent  his  life  as  a  fisherman,  peaceful  and 
placid  in  one  hour  and  lashed  into  a  sudden  fury  of  tempest 
in  another  hour.  You  never  could  tell  what  was  coming 
next  with  Peter.  There  was  nothing  tame  or  commonplace 
about  him.  He  was  as  full  of  contradictions  and  inconsist- 
encies as  any  of  us.  He  always  seemed  to  be  in  motion  like 
a  pendulum,  reacting  from  one  extreme  to  another.^ 

There  was  that  miraculous  draught  of  fishes.  Peter 
and  his  partners  had  fished  all  night  and  caught  nothing. 
In  the  morning  with  considerable  disappointment  he  had 
come  to  the  shore,  and  he  was  busily  engaged  in  cleaning 
his  nets  when  Jesus,  accompanied  by  a  great  throng  of 
people,  drew  near.  He  asked  Peter  for  the  loan  of  the 
fishing  boat  for  a  while.  Peter  gladly  agreed  and  Jesus 
entered  the  boat  and  asked  Peter  to  thrust  out  from  the  land 
a  little.  Then  he  took  the  boat  end  for  a  pulpit  and  sat 
there  and  preached  a  morning  sermon.  It  was  a  sort  of 
sunrise  meeting,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  was  there;  as  he 
usually  is  when  people  get  up  that  early  to  meet  him.  When 
the  meeting  was  over  and  the  congregation  was  dismissed 
the  Lord  seemed  to  feel  that  some  obligation  was  upon  him 
to  repay  Peter  for  the  loan  of  the  boat  for  the  service.  To 
feel  that  one  good  turn  deserved  another  was  just  like  him, 
and  the  payment  of  his  obligation  was  just  like  him  too, 
lavish,  royal,  overwhelming  in  its  unexpectedness  and  its 
munificence.  He  said  to  Peter,  'Tut  out  into  the  deep,  and 
let  down  your  nets  for  a  draught." 


•  Hayes,  Great  Characters  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  47. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  125 

What  a  test  of  Peter's  faith  that  command  must  have 
been!  The  Master  might  know  more  than  Peter 
did  about  some  things,  and  about  most  things,  but 
Peter  well  might  doubt  whether  he  knew  more  about 
fishing.  Peter  knew  that  the  fish  were  to  be  caught 
at  night  and  not  in  the  morning.  Nobody  ever  fished  in  the 
sunshine.  All  the  other  fishermen  would  laugh  at  them  if 
they  saw  them  going  out  in  the  forenoon  and  dropping  their 
nets  in  the  deep  water.  The  fish  ran  near  the  shore.  His 
men  were  all  tired  out.  The  nets  were  just  about  clean 
again.  It  was  the  height  of  the  ridiculous  for  a  set  of  sea- 
soned fishermen  like  them  to  follow  such  absurd  directions 
from  a  man  just  out  of  a  carpenter  shop.  That  was  Peter's 
first  thought,  and  he  felt  like  filing  an  instant  remonstrance. 
"Master,  we  toiled  all  night,  and  took  nothing:  but  at  thy 
word  I  will  let  down  the  nets."  The  inconsistency  of  the 
reply  marked  the  quick  transition  from  remonstrance  to 
obedience.  The  obedience  was  rewarded  with  so  great  a 
multitude  of  fishes  that  their  nets  were  nigh  to  breaking.i^ 

There  was  that  last  supper  with  the  disciples,  at  which 
Jesus  girded  himself  with  a  towel  and  made  ready  to  wash 
the  disciples'  feet.  When  he  came  to  Peter  that  hot-headed 
disciple  said,  "Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet?"  When 
Jesus  intimated  that  that  was  his  intention,  Peter  roundly 
refused  his  permission.  "Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet." 
Then  Jesus  answered  him,  "If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast 
no  part  with  me."  If  Peter  was  not  ready  even  yet  to  ac- 
knowledge that  the  Master  knew  better  than  he  what  was 
proper  and  right,  the  Master  felt  that  he  might  as  well  give 
up  on  the  spot.  This  was  the  end  of  all  instruction  and 
example.  It  was  all  right  for  Peter  to  feel  humble  but  he 
must  not  be  rebellious  in  his  humility.  It  was  all  right  for 
Peter  to  expostulate  or  remonstrate,  but  he  must  not  overdo 


'  Luke  5. 1-6. 


126         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

the  thing.  He  had  had  one  experience  of  that  kind  at  Cae- 
sarea  Phihppi.  Would  he  have  another  here?  Matthew 
%enry  says,  "There  is  an  overdoing  as  well  as  an  under- 
doing, and  sometimes  such  an  overdoing  as  amounts  to  an 
undoing."  The  Master  said,  "If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast 
no  part  with  me."  That  would  be  Peter's  undoing  indeed! 
With  impulsive  reaction  Peter  rushes  to  the  other  extreme. 
He  said,  "Lord,  not  my  feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and 
my  head."  That  was  about  as  far  from  the  even  balance  of 
propriety  as  the  other  statement  had  been ;  but  Peter  meant 
it  all  right  and  Jesus  forgave  him.^^ 

It  was  to  this  impulsive  and  impetuous  disciple  that  Jesus 
gave  the  vision  afterward  on  the  housetop  at  Joppa,  and 
Peter,  without  taking  any  advice  from  the  authorities  at 
Jerusalem  concerning  any  such  radical  departure,  went  in 
hot  haste  down  to  Csesarea  and  admitted  a  Gentile  into  the 
church  without  any  other  preliminary  than  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  They  called  Peter  to  task  about  it  after- 
ward and  wanted  to  know  what  he  meant  by  such  a  high- 
handed and  unheard-of  procedure;  and  all  Peter  could  say 
was,  "God  granted  me  such  a  vision.  God  gave  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  them  even  as  he  gave  the  like  gift  to  us  in  the  be- 
ginning. Who  was  I  that  I  could  withstand  God?"^^  Qne 
wonders  whether  anyone  else  in  that  whole  apostolic  com- 
pany would  have  been  capable  of  any  such  instant,  impul- 
sive, unhesitating  obedience  to  such  a  starthng  command. 
Peter  had  learned  his  lesson  at  last.  His  first  impulse  now 
was  to  do  the  thing  the  Master  commanded  regardless  of 
any  consequences  which  might  follow  to  himself.  That  im- 
pulse was  a  safe  one,  and  it  made  him  the  natural  leader  of 
the  infant  church. 

(2)  Peter  was  as  hasty  in  speech  as  he  was  in  action.  He 
often  talked  without  thinking,  like  the  rest  of  us.    He  never 


"John  13.  i-io.  12 Acts  II.  4-16. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  127 

could  brook  either  silence  or  inaction.  He  always  was  in 
favor  of  going  ahead  and  saying  something,  and,  like  the 
rest  of  us,  he  often  found  out  afterward  rather  than  before 
whether  he  had  been  going  ahead  on  the  right  road  or  the 
wrong  one  and  whether  he  had  been  talking  arrant  nonsense 
or  perfect  wisdom.  Peter  spoke  first  on  many  an  occasion, 
not  because  he  arrogated  to  himself  any  superior  enlighten- 
ment on  the  matter  in  hand  nor  because  he  desired  to  be  the 
recognized  spokesman  or  head  of  the  apostolic  company,  but 
simply  because  he  could  not  endure  any  pause  in  the  pro- 
ceedings. If  in  the  first  moment  of  silence  no  one  else  had 
found  anything  to  say,  then  Peter  might  be  relied  upon  to 
burst  in  with  an  expression  of  sublime  truth  or  most  pro- 
found falsehood;  and  it  always  was  a  question  which  it 
would  be.  He  might  win  the  Master's  highest  commenda- 
tion or  he  might  deserve  and  get  the  Master's  severest  re- 
buke. He  never  stopped  to  consider  which  it  would  be  likely 
to  be.  He  said  his  say,  and  then  waited  to  see.  The  scene 
at  the  great  confession  and  the  scene  at  the  feet-washing 
are  in  evidence. 

We  put  alongside  those  incidents  the  transfiguration  ex- 
perience on  the  mountaintop.  We  read  that  the  three  dis- 
ciples were  awe-struck  by  that  phenomenon,  and  even 
Peter  knew  not  what  to  say;  but  that  never  was  a  reason 
for  Peter  not  to  say  anything.  When  he  did  not  know  what 
to  say  he  opened  his  mouth  and  began  to  talk.  We  can  only 
imagine  what  nonsense  a  man  might  be  capable  of  in  such 
circumstances.  Nothing  could  have  been  more  absurd  than 
Peter's  suggestion  at  that  moment.  "Rabbi,  it  is  good  for 
us  to  be  here:  and  let  us  make  three  booths;  one  for  thee, 
and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Elijah."  What  did  that 
mean?  "We  are  having  a  good  time  here  together,  and  so 
suppose  we  prolong  our  stay,"  or  "The  air  is  cold  here  on 
the  mountain-top,  and  so  suppose  we  build  three  shelters 
from  the  night  wind  as  a  safeguard  against  rheumatism." 


128         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Whatever  it  meant,  and  it  may  have  meant  nothing  at  all 
either  to  Peter  who  uttered  it  or  to  the  others  who  heard 
it,  the  evangeUst  rather  apologizes  for  its  utter  inanity  and 
the  narrative  takes  no  further  notice  of  it  but  goes  on  to 
record  that  a  voice  came  out  of  the  cloud  suggesting  that 
Jesus  was  God's  beloved  Son  and  it  would  be  the  part  of 
wisdom  to  hear  him  rather  than  to  be  making  random 
speeches  out  of  an  empty  head,  as  Peter  had.^^ 

To  the  hasty  speech  of  Peter  at  the  time  of  the  great  con- 
fession and  at  the  time  of  the  feet-washing  and  at  the  time 
of  the  transfiguration  we  add  his  hasty  expostulation  when 
the  Master  foretold  that  all  the  disciples  would  be  offended 
and  scattered  abroad.  Peter  made  instant  denial,  "Although 
all  shall  be  offended,  yet  will  not  I."  Then  Jesus  told  him 
that  he  would  deny  his  Master  three  times  before  the  next 
morning,  and  » Peter  burst  into  exceedingly  vehement  as- 
severation of  his  unfailing  and  unquestionable  loyalty,  "If  I 
must  die  with  thee,  I  will  not  deny  thee."^*  He  meant  it 
and  he  was  sure  about  it.  The  next  day  he  knew  that  it 
had  been  a  hasty  and  inconsiderate  speech. 

Jesus  had  sent  the  young  ruler  away  sorrowful,  and  Peter 
said  to  him,  "Lo,  we  have  left  all,  and  followed  thee;  what 
then  shall  we  have?"  It  was  a  selfish  question  and  there 
was  a  tinge  of  vulgarity  and  bargain-seeking  in  it.  If  Peter 
had  taken  time  to  think  twice  before  speaking,  he  probably 
never  would  have  asked  such  a  question  at  such  a  time ;  and 
we  never  would  have  had  the  generous  promise  of  the  hun- 
dred-fold reward  which  Jesus  made  in  reply.^^ 

We  have  pointed  out  elsewhere^  ^  how  Peter  was  amazed 
at  the  wonder-working  power  displayed  by  the  Lord  in  the 
miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  and  how  in  all  probability  he 
never  was  more  determined  to  cleave  to  this  new  Master 
through  sunshine  and  storm.     Yet  what  does  he  do?     He 

"  Mark  9.  2-7.  "  Mark  14.  27-31.  «  Matt.  19.  27-29. 

"  The  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  p.  225. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  129 

falls  at  the  knees  of  Jesus.  That  was  all  right,  but  what 
does  he  say?  The  most  foolish  and  inexplicable  thing.  He 
cries,  "Depart  from  me;  for  I  am  a  sinful  man,  O  Lord.''^'^ 
It  would  have  been  more  becoming  for  Peter  to  depart,  if 
anybody  had  to  leave,  than  for  him  to  order  the  Master  to 
depart  from  him.  It  was  the  height  of  presumption  for  a 
sinful  man  to  take  it  upon  himself  to  give  orders  to  the 
sinless  Lord,  How  could  Jesus  depart  from  him,  anyway? 
They  were  out  in  deep  water  in  a  boat.  It  was  not  con- 
venient for  anyone  to  leave  that  boat  just  at  that  moment. 
Moreover,  Peter  really  did  not  wish  for  Jesus  to  depart 
from  him.  He  was  talking  without  thinking.  It  was  all 
utterly  foolish  and  inexcusable,  just  as  the  psychological 
processes  of  such  a  mind  as  Peter's  so  often  are.  It  was  an- 
other exhibition  of  Peter's  capacity  along  the  line  of  hasty 
and  impulsive  speech. 

Jesus  had  said  to  the  disciples  in  the  upper  room, 
"Whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come."  Then  he  had  gone  on  to 
talk  about  the  new  commandment  of  love;  but  Peter's  curi- 
osity had  been  aroused  and  when  he  could  endure  it  no 
longer  he  interrupted  the  Master's  speech  and  harked  back 
to  that  more  interesting  point,  "Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him. 
Lord,  whither  goest  thou?"  Jesus  assured  him  again  that 
he  could  not  follow  now,  and  Peter  questioned  again,  "Lord, 
why  cannot  I  follow  thee  even  now?  I  will  lay  down  my  life 
for  thee."^^ 

The  resurrected  Jesus  was  having  that  farewell  talk  with 
Peter  alone  on  the  shore  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  and  Peter 
saw  John  following  and  his  curiosity  overcame  his  courtesy 
again  and  he  interrupted  with  the  question,  "Lord,  and  what 
shall  this  man  do?"  Jesus  gently  rebuked  him.  "What  is 
that  to  thee?  follow  thou  me."^^  It  was  the  last  occasion, 
as   far  as  we  know,  in  which  Jesus  and  Peter  had  any 


Luke  5.  8.  "John  13.  36,  37.  "John  21.  21,  22. 


130         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

private  conversation  together,  and  Jesus  had  to  rebuke  Peter 
again  and  for  the  last  time  for  his  besetting  sin. 

(3)  Naturally  enough,  Peter  was  a  man  given  to  hyper- 
bole. Hasty  and  unconsidered  speech  is  likely  to  be  ex- 
travagant in  its  statement.  In  the  beginning  of  the  public 
ministry  of  Jesus,  when  he  was  attracting  general  attention 
by  his  cures,  we  read  that  all  the  city  was  gathered  together 
at  his  door  in  the  evening.  Very  early  on  the  next  morning 
Jesus  arose  and  went  out  into  the  desert  places  to  pray. 
Simon  and  those  who  were  with  him  organized  a  search 
party  at  once  and  went  after  their  fugitive  teacher  and 
healer.  We  can  imagine  the  eagerness  of  their  search,  and 
when  they  had  located  Jesus  in  some  remote  and  secluded 
spot  where  he  had  hoped  to  be  uninterrupted  for  a  time  at 
least,  we  can  imagine  how  Peter  would  rush  into  his  pres- 
ence at  the  head  of  the  intruding  column  with  the  half- 
apologetic  and  half-boastful  statement,  "All  are  seeking 
thee."20 

The  statement  was  not  even  half-true.  Probably  only  a 
small  company  were  in  that  searching  party.  Even  if  all 
the  city  people  who  had  stayed  at  home  and  yet  were  in- 
terested in  the  result  of  the  search  were  to  be  included  in 
Peter's  thought,  what  a  comparatively  small  number  of 
people  that  still  would  be !  The  most  of  the  people  in  the 
province  never  had  heard  of  Jesus  thus  far.  The  nation  was 
sublimely  unconscious  of  his  existence  as  yet.  The  empire 
never  would  hear  of  him  in  life  or  in  death.  Yet  Peter  is 
ready  to  make  that  sweeping  statement,  "All  men  are  seek- 
ing thee!"  All  men?  Possibly  fifty  men  were  seeking  him, 
and  fifty  million  men  were  not.  Peter  would  not  consider 
that  fact.  He  knew  that  many  men  were  seeking  Jesus  and 
hyperbolically  he  stretched  the  "many"  into  "all." 

After  that  last  long  discourse  with  the  disciples  they  ex- 


«>  Mark  i.  32-37. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  131 

pressed  their  satisfaction  with  the  plainness  of  the  speech 
of  Jesus,  "Lo,  now  speakest  thou  plainly,  and  speakest  no 
proverb,"  and  we  can  imagine  that  it  was  Peter  who  went 
farther  than  the  rest  in  his  hyperbolical  fashion  and  added, 
"Now  know  we  that  thou  knowest  all  things,  and  needest 
not  that  any  man  should  ask  thee,"2i  The  passage  has  been 
quoted  as  a  proof  passage  for  the  omniscience  of  Jesus.  It 
proves  nothing  but  the  tendency  of  Peter  and  possibly  of  the 
other  disciples  as  well  to  be  hyperbolical  in  the  expressions 
of  their  confidence  in  Jesus.  Jesus  was  not  omniscient. 
He  tells  us  of  one  thing  he  did  not  know.  He  asked  ques- 
tions in  order  to  find  out  many  other  things.  When 
Peter  and  the  disciples  said,  "Thou  knowest  all  things," 
they  were  stretching  the  truth  as  much  as  when  they 
told  Jesus  there  in  the  beginning,  "All  men  are  seek- 
ing thee."  "Although  all  shall  be  offended,  yet  will  not  I."22 
That  was  the  way  Peter  talked;  but  it  did  not  follow  that 
what  he  so  confidently  asserted  was  true.  The  Master  told 
him  plainly  when  he  made  that  boast  that  what  he  said  was 
not  true  and  another  morning  would  prove  it. 

3.  A  Going  Man.  Peter  was  a  man  who  always  was  in 
motion.  He  never  could  sit  still  very  long  at  a  time.  He 
always  wanted  to  be  up  and  doing  something.  He  always 
wanted  to  be  up  and  going  somewhere.  During  the  forty 
days  after  the  resurrection,  when  the  disciples  were  waiting 
for  the  promised  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  in  Galilee, 
we  read  that  Peter  said,  "I  go  a  fishing. "22  Peter  could  not 
sit  around  with  folded  hands  and  wait  for  anything.  He 
would  go  about  his  ordinary  business  and  wait  for  the  sum- 
mons to  meet  his  Lord  while  his  hands  and  his  feet  were 
kept  busy.  It  has  been  said  that  Peter  was  a  "going"  man 
and  John  was  a  "knowing"  one.  It  is  a  good  characteriza- 
tion. 


"John  16.  29,  30.  22  Mark  14.  29.        "John  21.  3. 


132         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

When  the  disciples  there  at  the  Last  Supper  wanted  some 
information,  through  Peter,  their  spokesman,  they  appHed 
to  John  to  get  it.  John  always  was  nearest  the  great 
Teacher,  and  John  knew  him  best.  He  was  the  beloved 
disciple  and  he  was  the  loving  disciple;  and  love  begets 
insight  and  gives  intuition.  When  they  were  fishing  in  the 
morning  mist  and  the  Stranger  appeared  on  the  shore  and 
told  them  where  they  could  find  all  the  fish  they  could 
handle,  John  peered  through  the  sea-fog  and  strained  his 
eyes  to  make  out  that  strange  form  on  the  beach  until  the 
glad  certainty  of  conviction  sprang  up  within  him  that  it 
was  the  Lord  himself.  When  he  knew  it  he  told  Peter. 
When  Peter  heard  it  he  went  to  the  Lord  through  the  sea.^^ 
John  knows  first;  Peter  goes  first.  That  was  a  characteris- 
tic difference  between  them. 

When  the  women  first  had  come  to  the  disheartened  and 
despairing  disciple  group  after  the  crucifixion  with  their 
strange  news  of  a  resurrection  appearance  of  the  Lord,  we 
read  that  the  words  of  the  women  seemed  to  them  as  idle 
tales  and  they  believed  them  not.  However,  unbelief  never 
would  seem  to  Peter  a  valid  reason  for  inaction.  We  read 
that  Peter  "arose  and  ran  unto  the  tomb"  to  find  out  for 
himself  what  foundation  there  might  be  for  such  wild  re- 
ports.26  John  followed  Peter  and  being  the  younger  man, 
outran  him  and  came  first  to  the  tomb.  There  John  stopped 
at  the  entrance,  overcome  with  surprise  or  with  awe.  Im- 
petuous Peter  came  puffing  after,  and  without  any  thought 
of  restraining  reverence  of  any  kind  he  rushed  past  John 
into  the  empty  tomb.  There  the  two  disciples  saw  the  same 
things,  but  of  John  we  read  that  he  saw  and  believed.  He 
knew  the  significance  of  these  things  first.  Peter  was  simply 
bewildered  by  them,  while  John  thought  his  way  through 
and  came  at  the  truth.  Peter  goes  first  into  the  tomb.  John 
follows  and  knows  first  what  that  empty  tomb  meant.^s 

"  John  21.  7.  »  Luke  24.  8-12.  ^  John  20.  3-8. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  133 

The  other  disciples  waited  on  the  ship  to  welcome  the 
Master  that  night  when  he  came  walking  to  them  through 
the  storm;  but  Peter  scrambled  over  the  side  of  the  vessel 
as  soon  as  he  was  convinced  that  this  was  no  ghost,  and  he 
walked  away  across  the  water  to  grasp  the  Master's  hand. 
He  did  it  without  thinking.  As  soon  as  he  had  time  to  think 
he  began  to  sink.^''' 

When  Jesus  told  the  disciples  that  he  was  going  away 
from  them,  and  they  could  not  follow  him  when  he  went, 
Peter's  warm  affection  and  impetuous  zeal  could  not  endure 
the  thought  of  any  delay,  and  he  said,  "Lord,  why  cannot  I 
follow  thee  now?  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thee."28  The 
Lord  had  said  that  he  could  follow  afterward,  but  that  did 
not  satisfy  Peter.  If  he  were  going  to  follow  at  all,  he  was 
in  favor  of  following  right  away.  That  was  the  first  im- 
pulse with  Peter,  to  go  at  the  thing  and  get  it  done.  It  might 
be  the  wrong  thing  to  do,  but  Peter  would  rather  be  doing 
something,  even  if  it  were  the  wrong  thing.  He  was  not 
willing  to  wait,  even  when  the  Master  gave  him  explicit 
directions  to  do  so. 

That  is  apparent  again  in  the  ten  days  before  Pentecost. 
The  Lord  had  told  the  disciples  to  wait  the  promise  of  the 
Father,  and  they  were  waiting  in  the  upper  room  together 
in  prayer.  In  those  days  Peter  stood  up  and  said,  "Brethren, 
we  do  not  seem  to  be  getting  anywhere  in  this  prayer  meet- 
ing. I  think  it  is  time  that  we  were  doing  something.  Let 
us  transact  a  little  business.  Suppose  we  elect  a  successor 
to  Judas.  We  will  have  that  much  accomplished,  no  matter 
what  else  may  happen  later."  It  was  rank  disobedience. 
The  Master  had  told  them  to  wait,  and  Peter  was  not  will- 
ing to  wait.  Anything  else  would  be  easier  for  him  than 
that.  His  impatience  led  the  disciples  into  the  great  blunder 
of  electing  Matthias  to  the  place  in  which  Jesus  put  the 


»  Matt.  14.  28-31.  28  John  13.  36,  37. 


134         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

apostle  Paul  later  when  he  was  ready  to  make  the  appoint- 
ment which  Peter  was  disposed  to  take  out  of  his  hands. 
Peter  was  not  bashful.  He  seemed  to  be  willing  to  assume 
superiority  to  his  Lord  on  more  than  one  occasion.  It  fre- 
quently happens  that  the  more  thoughtless  a  man  is  the 
more  he  prides  himself  upon  his  own  good  judgment. 

Peter  never  lacked  in  self-confidence.  He  was  a  consti- 
tutional blunderer  in  the  beginning,  always  going  ahead 
and  headlong;  but  he  was  so  hearty  about  everything  that 
you  could  forgive  him.  He  blundered  heartily  and  repented 
heartily,  and  you  could  forgive  him  heartily.  He  made  such 
a  splendid  dash  at  everything.  He  might  be  utterly  mis- 
taken in  his  thinking,  but  his  motives  always  were  the  best. 
He  would  have  charged  with  the  Light  Brigade  at  Balak- 
lava;  and  if  he  had  been  the  commanding  officer,  he  would 
have  been  likely  to  order  the  charge  and  to  see  the  next  min- 
ute that  it  was  all  a  blunder.^^  Jesus  rebuked  Peter  again 
and  again,  and  yet  he  always  Hked  him.  Paul  rebuked  Peter 
to  his  very  face,  and  yet  he  must  have  had  a  sincere  affection 
for  the  man,  so  blustering  and  blundering  and  at  the  same 
time  so  loyal  and  so  sincere.  When  he  repented  Jesus  for- 
gave him  and  Paul  forgave  him  and  everybody  else  forgave 
him.  Luther  once  said,  "Whenever  I  look  at  Peter,  my  very 
heart  leaps  for  joy.  If  I  could  paint  a  portrait  of  Peter, 
I  would  paint  upon  every  hair  of  his  head,  'I  believe  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.'  " 

Why  was  it  that  everybody  could  forgive  Peter  so  readily  ? 
Because  they  realized  that  his  faults  were  not  radically  faults 
at  heart.  His  head  might  go  wrong,  but  his  heart  never  did. 
He  might  seem  to  be  like  Reuben,  "unstable  as  water,"  but 
that  was  only  on  the  surface  of  his  character.  Nothing  is 
more  stable  than  the  ocean  depths ;  and  Peter  was  not  a  man 
who  was  all  surface  and  no  depth.     Down  deep  in  his  na- 

*»  Compare  Hayes,  Great  Characters  of  the  New  Testament,  pp. 
47,4s. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  135 

ture  there  was  the  abiding  loyalty  and  right  purpose  which 
endeared  him  to  all.  His  friends  might  mourn  over  his 
indiscretions  and  be  sure  that  Peter  never  would  get  over 
them,  and  yet  they  would  love  him  all  the  time,  for  at  bottom 
Peter  was  all  right.  He  was  easily  agitated,  easily  roused 
to  action  and  speech,  easily  swayed  now  in  one  direction  and 
now  in  another,  impulsive  and  inconsistent;  but  his  anchor 
always  held.     He  always  came  around  all  right  in  the  end. 

He  was  not  shallow.  There  was  plenty  of  good  stuff  in 
him.  He  had  a  deal  of  stamina,  and  no  one  ever  questioned 
his  devotion  to  Jesus  at  any  point.  With  an  excessive 
amount  of  mental  mobility  and  an  utterly  irrepressible 
amount  of  nervous  energy  which  would  not  permit  him  to 
be  either  silent  or  still  and  which  kept  his  tongue  wagging 
and  his  feet  in  perpetual  motion  Peter  was  strong  in  his 
love  for  Jesus.  That  saved  him  from  shipwreck  through 
rashness.  That  brought  him  safely  through  all  the  twisting 
currents  of  his  superficial  life  to  a  safe  harbor  at  last.  Im- 
pulsiveness and  impetuosity  of  action  and  speech  were  char- 
acteristic of  Peter,  but  there  was  a  more  fundamental  char- 
acteristic, and  that  was  Peter's  steadfast  adherence  to  Jesus 
and  allegiance  to  his  cause. 

4.  A  Loyal  Man.  Peter's  devotion  was  unfailing.  His 
love  was  lasting.  His  loyalty  never  was  lost.  Even  when 
it  seemed  most  apparent  that  Peter  was  lacking  in  the  rever- 
ence and  the  love  which  were  due  to  his  Lord,  at  heart  he 
meant  it  all  right.  It  was  his  love  which  prompted  his  most 
fooHsh  conduct  as  well  as  his  most  noble  behavior.  There 
is  no  mystery  about  Peter.  We  never  may  be  able  to  tell 
beforehand  what  Peter  is  likely  to  do,  but  when  he  has 
done  it  we  see  at  once  that  the  key  to  his  conduct  is  to  be 
found  in  his  love  for  his  Master.  Peter  loved  everybody  who 
was  good.  He  loved  his  wife,  and  she  was  ready  to  leave 
her  comfortable  home  and  follow  Peter  in  his  itinerant 
and  missionary  labors  in  his  later  life.    He  loved  his  mother- 


136         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

in-law,  and  when  she  was  sick  with  a  fever  Peter  joined 
with  the  other  disciples  in  asking  Jesus  to  heal  her.  He 
loved  John,  and  John  was  his  faithful  satelHte  during  all 
the  period  covered  by  the  Gospels  and  the  book  of  Acts. 

He  loved  Jesus  with  a  greater  love  than  anyone  else  ever 
had  roused  within  his  passionate  soul.  He  left  all  to  follow 
him.  He  loved  him  fervently,  intensely,  without  reserva- 
tion. He  was  ever  on  the  stretch  to  prove  his  devotion. 
That  makes  the  pathos  of  the  Master's  appeal  there  in  the 
Garden  of  Gethsemane  all  the  more  poignant.  He  came 
from  his  agony  of  prayer  and  found  the  three  favorite  dis- 
ciples sleeping;  and  he  does  not  seem  to  have  thought  it 
strange  in  James  or  in  John,  but  he  singles  out  Peter  and 
says  to  him,  "Simon,  sleepest  thou?  couldest  thou  not  watch 
one  hour?"30  fje  ^^d  been  so  sure  of  Peter's  unfaiHng 
fidelity.  It  was  a  last  and  added  pang  to  find  even  Peter 
asleep  in  this  hour  of  his  need.  Peter  always  had  loved 
him,  and  he  had  come  to  rely  upon  the  generous  expression 
of  his  sympathy.  It  had  been  a  comfort  to  him  so  many 
times. 

Even  when  he  had  tried  to  bully  the  Lord  out  of  his 
prophecy  of  Calvary  it  had  been  because  of  his  love  for 
his  Master.  He  could  not  endure  the  thought  of  his  suf- 
fering and  rejection.  It  was  his  generosity  and  his  devotion 
which  prompted  his  hasty  speech.  It  was  his  loyalty  and  his 
human  affection  which  would  ward  off  all  danger  from  the 
Lord  and  insofar  as  that  desire  to  save  the  Master  from  all 
suffering  was  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  it  savored  of  the 
things  of  men  and  not  of  the  things  of  God  and  it  rep- 
resented the  spirit  of  Satan  himself.  It  had  to  be  sharply 
rebuked  by  Jesus,  and  yet  Jesus  recognized  that  it  was  only 
a  manifestation  of  mistaken  love  on  Peter's  part,  and  he 
never  loved  Peter  any  the  less  but  rather  the  more  because 


*>  Mark  14.  37. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  137 

of  it.  Peter  had  not  turned  traitor  to  the  Lord  all  in  a 
moment.  He  loved  Jesus  just  as  much  when  he  was  re- 
buking the  Master  as  when  he  was  uttering  the  great  con- 
fession. It  was  his  love  which  led  him  to  both  speeches. 
The  one  was  a  happy  inspiration  and  the  other  was  a  hideous 
blunder ;  but  they  were  boih  born  of  his  hot-headed  and  hot- 
hearted  love. 

It  seems  to  us  that  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  great 
denial  in  the  high  priest's  hall.  We  are  fain  to  believe  that 
Peter's  heart  was  loyal  and  right  all  thro-ugh  that  trying 
experience.  He  lied  three  times  in  denying  his  Lord  and 
declaring  that  he  did  not  belong  to  his  company,  and  he 
fell  to  cursing  finally ;  but  was  it  not  his  love  which  prompted 
the  falsehood  and  the  emphatic  asseveration?  Did  it  not 
seem  to  Peter  that  he  might  prevaricate  and  swear  a  little 
rather  than  be  thrust  out  from  his  Master's  presence?  What 
business  was  it  of  these  inquisitive  servants  anyway  whether 
he  was  a  follower  of  Jesus  or  not?  It  would  be  better  to 
deceive  them  for  a  moment  than  to  appear  to  desert  the 
Lord  here  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 

We  easily  can  understand  how  this  was  the  first  quick 
impulse  of  Peter's  heartfelt  devotion  and  that  it  seemed 
all  right  to  him  until  the  Master  turned  and  looked  upon  him 
and  Peter  saw  in  the  reproach  of  the  Master's  eyes  that  it 
would  be  far  better  for  him  to  be  separated  from  Jesus  by 
bodily  expulsion  than  that  he  should  be  separated  from  him 
spiritually  by  lying  and  swearing.  Then  when  he  went  out 
into  the  dark  where  he  could  see  nothing  but  the  reproach 
in  the  Master's  eyes  all  the  time  he  began  to  reaUze  for  the 
first  time,  and  then  more  and  more  fully  as  the  hours  went 
by,  that  he  had  indeed  fulfilled  the  Master's  prophecy  con- 
cerning him  and  had  denied  him  before  men  and  within  his 
own  hearing,  and  the  strong  man  broke  down  into  passion- 
ate weeping  and  most  hearty  repentance  for  his  actual,  if 
unpremeditated  and  unintentional  sin.    Peter  did  not  betray 


138         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

his  Lord  as  Judas  did;  and  he  did  not  commit  suicide  as 
Judas  did  in  consequence  of  his  heartless  sin.  Peter  denied 
on  the  moment's  impulse  only,  and  as  soon  as  he  had  had 
time  to  think,  his  heart  was  grieved  and  he  repented  bitterly. 

He  was  sure  of  one  thing,  that  his  love  to  Jesus  never 
had  failed,  and  Jesus  was  just  as  sure  of  it  as  he.  There 
on  the  seashore  in  Galilee  he  had  Peter  repeat  three  times 
his  profession  of  love,  so  that  Peter  might  have  the  consola- 
tion forever  that  his  threefold  denial  had  been  wiped  out  by 
his  threefold  confession  of  loyalty.  Augustine  said  of  it, 
"Be  not  sad,  Apostle:  answer  once,  answer  twice,  answer 
thrice;  let  confession  conquer  thrice  in  love,  as  presump- 
tion was  conquered  thrice  in  fear;  that  must  be  thrice 
loosed  which  thou  hast  thrice  bound."  It  was  even  so. 
Peter  fell  back  upon  the  assertion,  "Lord,  thou  knowest  all 
things;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.''^^  That  was  all  he 
could  say,  but  that  covered  his  whole  case.  Jesus  knew 
that  Peter  loved  him  all  the  time.  His  head  so  often  was 
at  fault  and  therefore  his  tongue  and  his  feet  and  his  hands 
and  his  whole  body  went  wrong,  but  his  spirit  was  true  and 
his  heart  was  all  right.  If  he  was  a  blunderbuss,  it  was 
because  he  was  made  that  way.  He  intended  to  go  straight 
all  the  time.  With  all  his  blundering  he  was  so  faithful  and 
so  loyal  that  the  Lord  made  him,  not  James  nor  John  nor 
Paul,  the  founder  of  his  church. 

5.  A  Rock  Man.  Peter  was  the  rock  apostle  of  the  early 
church.  He  was  not  a  perfect  man.  He  was  full  of  faults. 
Possibly  a  perfect  man  would  not  have  served  the  purpose 
of  the  Lord  so  well  as  Peter  did  there  in  the  beginning.  It 
is  something  to  be  thankful  for  that  the  moving  spirit  in  the 
founding  of  the  Christian  Church  was  not  some  paragon 
whose  immaculate  conduct  and  unimpeachable  career  might 
have  been  depressing  or  discouraging  to  all  of  us  weak  mor- 


"  John  21.  17. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  139 

tals  who  have  followed  him.  Peter  was  so  heady  and  hasty 
and  human  in  both  his  good  qualities  and  his  faults  that  we 
always  have  been  able  to  see  in  him  just  what  Christianity 
could  do  for  honest  but  erring  men.  He  had  a  sanguine  tem- 
perament, and  he  might  be  led  astray  for  a  moment,  and  he 
might  seem  to  be  fickle  and  inconsistent,  but  at  the  bottom  of 
his  character  there  was  the  bed-rock  of  an  unflinching  faith 
in  the  Master  and  an  unfailing  loyalty  to  him.  That  was  the 
only  foundation  upon  which  the  church  could  be  built. 

Jesus  saw  this  characteristic  in  Peter  at  their  first  meet- 
ing at  the  Jordan  when  Andrew  brought  his  brother  to  the 
Lord  as  the  newly  discovered  Messiah.  "Jesus  looked  upon 
him,  and  said.  Thou  art  Simon  the  son  of  John,"  or  Jonas 
or  Jonah:  "thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas  (which  is  by  inter- 
pretation, Peter) "32  qj.  Rock  or  Stone.  There  may  be  a 
play  upon  words  here.  Jonah  means  "a  dove,"  and  the 
Master  may  have  suggested  in  this  collocation  of  proper 
names  the  mixture  of  elements  in  Peter's  character.  "Thou 
art  the  son  of  the  gentle  and  shrinking  Dove,  but  thou  shalt 
be  the  Rock  in  which  the  Dove  dwells.  Thou  son  of  the 
Dove  of  the  Rock,  become  henceforth  the  Rock  of  the  Dove. 
Out  of  thy  weakness  be  made  strong;  and  be  thou  a  tower 
of  strength  to  thy  brethren,  even  as  the  cliff  in  which  the 
dove  makes  its  nest  is  its  sure  defense  from  all  its  foes." 
There  is  a  mixture  of  dovelikeness  and  of  clifflikeness  in 
Peter,  but  it  is  the  rough  and  ready  strength  of  the  man 
which  predominates.  So  Jesus  named  him  "The  Rock," 
that  his  very  name  might  symbolize  his  strength. 

Peter  first  made  the  great  confession  and  Jesus  approved 
him  for  it  and  declared  that  upon  this  rock  he  would  build 
his  church.33  ^t  the  close  of  the  ministry  he  foretold 
Peter's  failure,  but  said  to  him  that  when  he  was  converted 
he  would  rely  upon  him  to  strengthen  the  brethren.^*     At 


"John  1.  42.  »» Matt.  16.  18.  «  Luke  22.  32. 


140         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Pentecost  Peter  was  the  spokesman,  and  under  the  hot 
flood  of  his  eloquence  three  thousand  souls  were  swept  into 
the  church  in  one  day.  Peter  opened  the  door  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  to  Cornelius  and  other  uncircumcised  Gentiles. 
He  was  the  leader  in  the  beginning. 

He  himself  was  a  sample  of  the  thoroughgoing  trans- 
formation wrought  at  Pentecost.  He  was  capable  of  a 
whole-hearted  surrender  to  the  Christ  and  his  cause,  and 
he  was  outspoken  enough  and  emotional  enough  to  impart 
something  of  his  loyalty  and  energy  to  others.  That  begin- 
ning work  might  not  have  been  done  so  well  by  a  rabbi  or  a 
seer  or  a  philosopher  or  a  theologian,  but  Peter  was  so 
hearty  and  so  human  that  he  won  sympathy  both  for  him- 
self and  for  his  Master  wherever  he  went.  Peter  did  his 
work  well.  The  church  was  well  founded.  Peter  may  have 
been  eclipsed  by  Paul  in  the  later  days,  but  he  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  Paul  in  being  in  at  the  start.  It  was  honor 
enough  for  him  that  the  Master  had  chosen  him  and  his 
confession  to  be  the  rock  upon  which  the  church  should  be 
built. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  claim  for  him  the  added  and  unre- 
liable honor  of  being  the  first  pope  at  Rome.  That  cannot 
be  proved  either  from  the  New  Testament  or  from  the 
tradition  of  the  church.  "Let  us  imagine  that  we  had  read 
in  the  New  Testament  that  Peter  had  been  mastered  by  an 
irresistible  conviction  that  it  was  his  duty  to  go  to  Rome; 
that  he  had  persevered  in  the  design  till  he  accomplished  it ; 
that  previously  he  had  addressed  to  the  Roman  Christians 
the  longest  and  most  elaborate  exposition  of  Christian  doc- 
trine which  we  possess  in  the  Sacred  Volume ;  that  when  at 
Rome  he  had  from  that  place,  as  from  a  great  center,  ad- 
dressed authoritative  epistles  to  other  churches ;  that  he  had 
represented  himself  as  weighed  down  with  the  care  of  all 
the  churches ;  that  he  had  exercised  excommunication ;  that 
he  had  asserted  his  authority  and  magnified  his  office  in  the 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  141 

strongest  language ;  that  he  had  sent  his  legates,  with  full 
power  to  act  for  him;  that  he  had  given  peremptory  com- 
mands regarding  social  duties  and  public  worship;  that  he, 
and  he  only,  had  written  pastoral  letters  respecting  the  du- 
ties of  the  clergy — ^if  these  things  had  been  read  in  the  New 
Testament  concerning  Peter,  we  might  be  ready  to  listen  to 
those  who  asserted  that  Peter  had  been  made  pope  of  the 
church  in  Rome.  "These  things,  and  other  things  such  as 
these,  are  written  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  they  are  writ- 
ten concerning  Paul,  not  concerning  Peter."^^ 

We  could  show  better  reason  for  believing  that  Paul  was 
pope  than  that  Peter  was  pope.  Neither  of  them  ever  was 
pope  or  ever  thought  of  any  such  thing.  It  was  sufficient 
for  each  of  these  men  that  they  were  chosen  vessels  of  the 
Lord  and  apostles  of  the  early  church.  The  Lord  could  get 
along  with  Peter  better  than  Paul  could.  Under  the  Lord's 
loving  tuition  Peter  is  one  of  the  best  examples  of  growth 
in  grace  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  or  in  the  history  of 
the  church,  and  that  again  makes  him  doubly  interesting 
to  us. 

6.  A  Growing  Man.  Peter  improved  with  old  age.  His 
sanguine  temperament  and  his  impetuous  spirits  cooled  down 
a  little  through  the  years.  His  ardor  and  his  devotion  re- 
mained, but  they  were  not  so  liable  to  hasty  and  ill-consid- 
ered manifestations.  As  Peter  was  a  going  man  he  was  a 
growing  man  as  well.  He  grew  in  grace  as  long  as  he  lived. 
The  horizon  widened  before  him  until  he  could  see  as  far  as 
the  apostle  Paul.  If  on  one  occasion  he  forgot  his  heaven- 
taught  catholicity,  he  did  not  forget  his  heaven-wrought  hu- 
mility. When  Paul  rebuked  him  he  repented  as  readily  as 
when  the  Lord  rebuked  him,  and,  taught  by  sad  experience 
as  we  so  often  are,  thenceforth  he  was  steady  in  his  adher- 
ence to  the  Petrine-Pauline  principles  upon  which  the  Chris- 


*  Howson,  Horae  Petrinas,  p.  95. 


142         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

tian  Church  was  founded.  Is  there  a  more  rounded  and  sym- 
metrically strong  character  in  that  church  than  the  apostle 
Peter  of  whom  we  get  glimpses  in  the  First  Epistle  and  in 
the  later  church  tradition  ?3« 

Paul  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  that  backslider  John 
Mark.  He  will  part  company  with  Barnabas  rather  than 
keep  company  with  him.  Peter  feels  a  bond  of  sympathy 
with  such  fickleness.  He  searches  John  Mark  out,  deals 
with  him  gently,  brings  him  back  into  the  ministry,  where 
ever  after  he  is  Peter's  "son."  Peter  was  more  willing  to 
strengthen  the  weak  brethren  than  Paul  was.  Had  not  the 
Lord  said  to  him,  "Feed  my  lambs"  ?  All  through  the  book 
of  Acts  he  is  the  obedient  undershepherd  of  the  flock,  an 
acknowledged  leader  among  his  brethren  but  never  arrogat- 
ing any  undue  authority  to  himself.  He  is  courteous  and 
courageous,  humble  and  brave,  obedient  to  God  rather  than 
to  hostile  men,  dignified  among  his  enemies  and  among  his 
peers,  the  same  old  Peter  and  yet  so  changed  for  the  better 
that  his  very  presence  and  abiding  experience  were  constant 
recommendation  of  the  faith  he  professed.  The  impetuous 
and  impulsive  disciple  had  become  an  example  of  patience 
to  the  flock.  The  richness  of  his  Christian  character  was  a 
proof  of  what  Christianity  could  do  for  the  weakest  and 
poorest  material.  It  was  an  encouragement  to  all  to  be- 
lieve that  when  Satan  had  sifted  them  as  he  did  Peter  there 
might  be  something  of  the  same  rich  result  in  their  lives. 
Longfellow  has  put  that  encouragement  into  verse,  written 
not  long  before  his  death. 

"In  St.  Luke's  Gospel  we  are  told 
How  Peter,  in  the  days  of  old, 

Was  sifted; 
And  now,  though  ages  intervene, 
Sin  is  the  same,  while  time  and  scene 
Are  shifted. 


"«  Compare  Hayes,  Great  Characters  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  49. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  143 

"Satan  desires  us,  great  and  small, 
As  wheat  to  sift  us ;  and  we  all 

Are  tempted. 
Not  one,  however  rich  or  great, 
Is  by  his  station  or  estate 

Exempted. 

"For  all  at  last  the  cock  will  crow. 
Who  hear  the  warning  voice  and  go 

Unheeding, 
Till  thrice  and  more  they  have  denied 
The  Man  of   Sorrows,  crucified 
And  bleeding. 

"One  look  of  that  pale  suffering  face 
Will  make  us  feel  the  deep  disgrace 

Of  weakness; 
We  shall  be  sifted  till  the  strength 
Of  self-conceit  be  changed  at  length 

To  meekness." 

It  was  done  for  Peter.    It  may  be  done  for  any  man. 

7.  The  Apostle  of  Hope.  Peter  believed  that  there  was 
hope  for  everybody,  for  there  had  been  hope  for  him.  It  is  a 
characteristic  of  all  his  later  days,  this  "pure  and  beautiful 
Christian  optimism."  He  is  largely  responsible  for  our  mod- 
ern gospel  of  the  larger  hope.  His  heart  was  big  enough  to 
hope  for  anything;  and  when  his  head  was  steadied  by  the 
spirit  of  a  sound  understanding,  he  was  worthy  to  write  to 
the  universal  church  those  invaluable  exhortations  to  hu- 
mility and  confidence,  soberness  and  vigilance  which  would 
establish,  strengthen,  settle  it  until  through  sufferings  it,  like 
himself,  had  been  made  perfect  in  Christ. 

8.  A  Pen  Portrait  of  Peter.  Can  we  form  any  picture 
now  of  the  apostle  whom  Jesus  chose  to  be  one  of  his  favor- 
ite three?  He  was  a  man  in  middle  life,  whose  wife's  mother 
was  still  vigorous  enough  to  minister  to  a  company  of 
guests  as  soon  as  she  was  relieved  of  her  fever.    She  may 


144         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

have  been  an  old  woman,  but  her  son-in-law  probably  was 
in  his  prime.  The  Lord  could  speak  to  him  of  the  time  when 
he  was  young  and  in  the  same  sentence  prophesy  what  would 
happen  to  him  when  he  was  old.^"^  He  was  a  sun-burned 
and  horny-handed  man,  used  to  hard  physical  labor.  He 
was  a  fisherman,  inured  to  all  kinds  of  wind  and  weather. 
He  was  liable  to  sudden  tempests  of  passion,  and  when  his 
self-control  was  lost  he  could  swear  with  the  best  of  them. 
He  had  all  the  billingsgate  of  the  fish  market  at  his  tongue's 
end.  Yet  he  was  a  generous-hearted  man,  always  ready  to 
help  anyone  in  distress ;  and  everybody  knew  that  if  he  did 
anyone  an  injury  in  his  temper,  he  would  do  all  he  could 
to  more  than  make  up  for  it  when  his  anger  was  gone. 

He  was  not  a  man  of  very  delicate  feeling,  a  little  coarse 
in  manner  and  in  language  sometimes.  Yet  he  was  a  simple 
soul,  capable  of  intense  devotion,  and  at  bottom  all  right. 
Everybody  believed  in  his  fundamental  sincerity  and  every- 
body liked  him.  Most  people  were  ready  to  give  him  his 
head,  knowing  that  if  he  got  on  a  wrong  course  it  would  be 
a  short  one  and  he  would  come  around  all  right  in  the  end. 
He  was  reasonably  well  to  do.  He  was  a  partner  in  a  firm 
which  had  a  sufficient  number  of  hired  servants  to  leave 
the  whole  business  with  them,  all  the  ships  and  all  the  nets, 
while  he  followed  the  Master.  He  was  a  householder  and 
a  man  of  some  standing  in  the  community.  Withal  he  was  a 
rough  and  ready,  hasty,  heady,  hearty,  human,  hopeful, 
lovable  sort  of  man,  a  natural  leader  of  men  and  a  leader 
who  would  be  loved  by  all  who  came  to  know  him  inti- 
mately. 

He  was  something  of  an  orator.  He  had  had  plenty  of 
practice  in  plain  speech.  His  tongue  seldom  was  silent  and 
neither  his  brain  nor  his  feet  nor  his  hands  were  quiet  for 
any  considerable  length  of  time.    If  his  heart  could  be  cap- 


John  21.  i8. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  145 

tured  and  all  this  superabundant  energy  could  be  enlisted 
in  the  cause  of  the  Christian  Church,  what  an  acquisition 
that  would  be !  He  would  have  to  be  trained  and  disciplined 
and  sifted  and  sanctified,  and  then  after  years  of  self-con- 
trol he  never  would  be  quite  safe  from  backsliding,  but  what 
a  tower  of  strength  he  would  be  in  the  meantime  to  all  who 
came  in  contact  with  him !  There  would  be  something  doing 
wherever  he  came,  and  it  would  be  doing  without  any  delay. 
The  Lord  chose  Peter  to  found  his  church  after  Pente- 
cost, and  after  Pentecost  Peter  was  a  saint  with  some  faults 
and  a  saint  liable  to  err  on  some  occasions,  but,  after  all,  a 
saint  worthy  to  stand  at  the  head  of  the  forming  church  as 
a  supreme  example  of  the  transforming  power  it  proclaimed 
to  all  men.  Over  against  that  Peter  of  the  Gospels  and  the 
book  of  Acts  we  set  the  Peter  of  the  First  Epistle,  and  the 
contrast  is  most  striking.  Can  we  imagine  him  as  he  looks 
at  the  time  of  the  writing  of  these  words  ?  He  is  an  old  man 
now.  His  hair  is  gray  and  his  physical  strength  has  abated. 
He  is  no  longer  dashing  impetuously  about  at  his  tasks.  He 
has  something  of  the  dignity  of  his  years.  He  is  patient 
with  all,  desirous  of  peace  with  all,  devoted  to  all.  He  is  a 
patriarch  with  an  honorable  record  behind  him.  He  has 
been  true  to  the  Master  whom  he  loved  through  all  the  years. 
He  is  as  true  to-day  as  ever  he  was.  He  would  have  all  men 
come  into  the  same  blessed  fealty  and  share  with  him  its 
present  joys  and  future  rewards.  It  is  with  that  end  in  view 
that  he  writes.  What  sort  of  an  epistle  would  such  a  man 
as  Peter  be  likely  to  write?  Surely  so  strong  a  personality 
would  make  its  own  characteristics  apparent  in  any  product 
of  its  pen.  We  shall  look  at  the  epistle  to  see  what  traces 
of  the  chastened  personality  of  Peter  it  may  bear. 

II.  Peter's  Personality  in  the  Epistle 

Many  people  read  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  without  any 
thought  of  the  author  as  they  read  it.    It  might  have  been 


146         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

written  by  Paul  or  James  or  Jude  or  John  or  anyone  else 
as  far  as  they  are  concerned.  It  might  have  been  written  by 
a  machine  rather  than  by  a  man  as  far  as  their  interest  goes. 
They  read  the  epistle  only  to  know  what  is  said  in  it,  and 
they  have  no  care  as  to  who  said  it  or  why  he  said  it  as  he 
did.  As  a  consequence  they  lose  half  or  more  than  half 
of  its  message.  They  might  hear  a  living  voice  in  these  pages. 
They  might  come  face  to  face  with  a  living  man  and  a  man 
well  worth  knowing;  for  he  was  one  of  the  most  conspicu- 
ous members  of  that  company  of  the  primitive  apostles 
whose  writings  and  teachings  have  turned  the  world  upside 
down. 

This  letter  is  written  by  a  man  who  lived  with  Jesus  and 
who  hstened  to  Jesus  and  who  learned  from  Jesus  the  words 
of  everlasting  life.  Everything  which  he  heard  and  saw 
through  the  three  years  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  helped  to 
prepare  him  for  the  writing  of  this  message.  Some  sayings 
of  Jesus  were  addressed  directly  to  him  and  in  some  of  the 
gospel  incidents  he  was  especially  prominent.  It  would  be 
interesting  if  we  found  touches  in  this  epistle  which  sug- 
gest these  sayings  and  these  incidents ;  for  as  we  read  them 
we  can  feel  sure  that  Peter  had  them  in  mind  as  he  wrote 
and  so  we  have  all  the  flood  of  light  which  they  can  throw 
upon  his  meaning.  It  surely  is  worth  while  to  search  for 
these  traces  of  the  personaHty  and  the  experiences  of  Peter 
in  the  epistle  and  we  find  that  it  is  teeming  full  of  them. 

I.  Let  us  look  first  at  the  most  Petrine  passage  in  the 
epistle,  "The  Lord  is  gracious :  unto  whom  coming,  a  living 
stone,  rejected  indeed  of  men,  but  with  God,  elect,  precious, 
ye  also,  as  living  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  to  be 
a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable 
to  God  through  Jesus  Christ.  Because  it  is  contained  in 
scripture, 

Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  chief  corner  stone,  elect,  precious : 

And  he  that  believeth  on  him  shall  not  be  put  to  shame. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  147 

For  you  therefore  that  believe  is  the  preciousness :  but  for 
such  as  disbelieve, 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected, 
The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner ; 

and, 

A  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offense/'^s 

Uerpa  OKavSaXovl  If  there  had  been  no  superscription  to 
this  epistle,  and  if  no  church  tradition  had  come  down  to 
us  concerning  its  authorship,  would  we  not  almost  feel 
warranted  in  saying  at  once  that  no  one  but  Peter  would 
have  been  likely  to  write  these  words  ?  It  is  the  rock  apostle 
who  rings  the  changes  upon  Christ  the  living  stone,  the 
chief  corner  stone,  the  stone  rejected  of  the  builders,  the 
stone  of  stumbling  and  the  rock  of  offense,  and  upon  Chris- 
tians as  living  stones  built  up  into  a  spiritual  house.  It  all 
goes  back  to  that  crowning  moment  of  his  career,  that  mo- 
ment of  the  great  confession  when  the  Master  had  said  to 
him,  "Thou  art  Petros  and  upon  this  petra  I  will  build  my 
church,"39  and  then  almost  immediately  afterward  the  Mas- 
ter had  rebuked  him,  saying,  "Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan : 
thou  art  a  stumbling-block  [skandalon]  unto  me."^''  Those 
two  Greek  words,  petra  and  skandalon,  must  have  burned 
themselves  into  Peter's  memory ;  and  here  they  are  side  by 
side  in  his  epistle,  Trerpa  aicavddXov,  a  rock  of  offense. 
Jesus  had  said  that  Peter  was  a  rock  and  he  also  had  said 
that  Peter  was  an  offense.  If  he  was  both,  then  he  was 
a  rock  of  offense !  That  was  a  title  which  Isaiah  had  given 
to  the  Christ !  Did  Peter  feel  that  in  appropriating  these 
two  titles  to  himself  he  was  through  this  prophetic  passage 
linked  all  the  more  closely  to  his  Lord?  At  any  rate,  this 
imagery  of  the  building  stone  seems  to  have  taken  deep  hold 
on  his  mind. 

»  I  Pet.  2.  4-8.  »  Matt.  16.  18.  *»  Matt.  16.  23. 


148         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

He  had  heard  the  Master  say  to  the  Jews,  "Did  ye  never 
read  in  the  scriptures, 

The  stone  which  the  builders  rejected. 

The  same  was  made  the  head  of  the  corner  ?"4i 

Peter  remembered  that  quotation  from  the  Scriptures  which 
seemed  to  give  to  the  Master  the  same  name  which  the 
Master  had  given  to  him,  and  when  after  Pentecost  he  stood 
before  the  rulers  and  elders  and  scribes  to  make  defense  of 
his  faith  he  told  them  of  Jesus,  "He  is  the  stone  which  was 
set  at  nought  of  you  the  builders,  which  was  made  the  head 
of  the  corner."^2  Here,  again,  in  the  epistle  he  quotes  the 
words,  and  thus  through  Peter  these  words  of  the  hundred 
and  eighteenth  psalm  are  to  be  found  in  the  Gospels  and 
the  book  of  Acts  and  the  Epistles  and  bind  these  several 
portions  of  the  New  Testament  into  unity  of  testimony  at 
this  point.  Jesus  was  a  rock  and  Peter  was  a  rock,  and  they 
both  were  Uving  men.  Stones  were  dead,  but  there  were 
such  things  as  living  stones. 

Peter  always  was  interested  supremely  in  life.  In  the 
great  confession  he  had  called  Jesus  the  Son  of  the  living 
God.'*^  Before  the  people  gathered  at  the  Beautiful  Gate 
of  the  temple  Peter  had  called  Jesus  "the  Prince  of  life."^^ 
When  other  disciples  went  back  and  walked  no  more  with 
Jesus,  Peter  said  to  him,  "Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal 
life."^^  He  begins  this  epistle  with  the  words,  "Blessed  he 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  accord- 
ing to  his  great  mercy  begat  us  again  unto  a  living  hope  by 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead."^^  He  tells 
husbands  and  wives  that  they  are  "joint  heirs  of  the  grace 
of  life."^'^  In  this  passage  he  calls  the  Lord  a  living  stone 
and  then  says  that  all  Christians  are  living  stones  in  the 

"  Matt.  21.  42.  «  Acts  4.  II. 

«  Matt.  16.  16.  «  Acts  3.  15.  «  John  6.  68. 

« I  Pet.  1.3.  «iPet.  3.  7. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  149 

spiritual  house  prepared  for  the  acceptable  worship  of  God. 
The  emphasis  upon  life,  the  collocation  of  the  two  terms 
"rock"  and  "offense,"  and  the  reiteration  of  the  image  of 
the  corner  stones  and  the  building  stones  all  mark  this  pas- 
sage as  one  from  the  pen  of  Peter,  the  rock  apostle,  and 
they  all  carry  us  back  to  the  incidents  recorded  in  the  six- 
teenth chapter  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  for  their 
origin  and  inspiration. 

2.  In  the  next  chapter  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew, the  seventeenth,  we  find  at  its  close  the  account  of 
another  incident  which  Peter  must  have  remembered  with 
greater  distinctness  than  anyone  else,  since  he  was  prin- 
cipally concerned  in  it.  The  collectors  of  the  temple  tax 
came  to  Peter  and  said,  "Doth  not  your  teacher  pay  the 
half-shekel?"  Peter  said  "Yes"  without  a  moment's  hesi- 
tation. He  spoke  without  thinking,  as  usual.  Of  course  his 
Master  would  pay  the  tax.  He  always  had  paid  the  tax, 
and  every  good  Jew  always  paid  the  tax.  So  Peter  said 
"Yes"  at  once.  Then  when  he  got  to  thinking  he  was  not 
so  sure  about  it.  Jesus  had  paid  the  tax,  but  that  was  be- 
fore he  had  been  acknowledged  as  the  Messiah.  That  ac- 
knowledgment might  change  the  whole  situation.  He 
thought  it  would  be  well  to  ask  Jesus  himself  about  it.  When 
he  entered  the  house  for  that  purpose  Jesus  anticipated  him 
with  a  statement  which  confirmed  his  fears  that  he  had 
been  hasty  in  his  assertion.  Jesus  said  to  him,  "What  think- 
est  thou,  Simon?  The  kings  of  the  earth,  from  whom  do 
they  receive  toll  or  tribute?  From  their  sons  or  from 
strangers?  And  when  he  said.  From  strangers,  Jesus  said 
unto  him.  Therefore  the  sons  are  free."^^  Sure  enough! 
Peter  had  just  told  Jesus  that  he  recognized  in  him  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.  Then  the  Son  would  not  need  to  pay 
taxes  for  the  support  of  the  Father's  worship  in  the  temple. 


«  Matt.  17.  25,  26. 


150         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Why  had  not  Peter  thought  of  that?  It  was  so  often  em- 
barrassing to  talk  without  thinking.  Here  was  another  in- 
stance in  point.  Poor  Peter  was  still  smarting  under  the 
sting  of  the  Master's  rebuke  for  his  hasty  speech.  Now  he 
evidently  was  in  for  it  again. 

What  a  relief  it  must  have  been  to  him  when  the  Master 
went  on  to  say:  "It  is  all  true  that  we  are  free;  and  if  we 
stood  upon  our  rights,  we  need  not  pay  this  temple  tax. 
Nevertheless,  that  we  may  not  give  offense  to  the  authorities 
we  will  be  subject  to  their  ordinances  and  pay  them  all  they 
ask."  Peter  never  would  forget  the  lesson  of  that  day.  We 
think  of  it  as  we  read  in  this  epistle,  *'Be  subject  to  every 
ordinance  of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake :  whether  to  the  king, 
as  supreme;  or  unto  governors,  as  sent  by  him  for  venge- 
ance on  evildoers  and  for  praise  to  them  that  do  well. 
For  so  is  the  will  of  God,  that  by  well-doing  ye  should  put 
to  silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish  men:  as  free,  and  not 
using  your  freedom  for  a  cloak  of  wickedness,  but  as  bond- 
servants of  God.  Honor  all  men.  Love  the  brotherhood. 
Fear  God.  Honor  the  king."^»  Is  not  this  the  lesson 
which  Peter  had  learned  there  at  Capernaum?  "We  are 
free,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  assert  our  freedom  over 
against  the  ordinances  of  men.  It  is  better  to  be  subject  to 
them  for  the  Lord's  sake." 

3.  We  turn  to  the  next  chapter  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  Matthew,  the  eighteenth,  and  we  find  another  word  of 
Jesus  addressed  directly  to  Peter.  Jesus  had  been  talking 
to  the  disciples  on  the  general  subject  of  church  discipline 
and  he  had  told  them  how  to  deal  with  faulty  brethren. 
Practical  Peter  broke  into  the  discourse  with  a  question. 
He  said,  "Lord,  how  oft  shall  my  brother  sin  against  me, 
and  I  forgive  him?  until  seven  times?"  That  was  the 
sacred  number  among  the  Jews.     Probably  Peter  thought 


Pet.  2.  13-17. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  151 

that  three  times  would  be  sufficient  and  seven  times  would 
be  extravagant  enough  to  suit  even  the  most  exacting  of  the 
religionists.  He  scarcely  could  imagine  himself  forgiving 
a  brother  so  many  times  as  that,- and  surely  he  never  would 
without  relieving  his  mind  as  to  that  brother's  shortcomings 
in  the  most  emphatic  manner.  We  can  imagine  Peter's  sur- 
prise when  Jesus  said  to  him,  "I  say  not  unto  thee,  Until 
seven  times ;  but,  until  seventy  times  seven."  Then  fol- 
lowed the  parable  of  the  unforgiving  servant  who  was  for- 
given until  he  took  his  fellow-servant  by  the  throat  and  who 
then  was  delivered  to  the  tormentors  until  he  had  paid  all 
that  was  due.^"  That  was  one  of  the  most  vivid  of  the 
Lord's  parables.  Peter  never  forgot  it.  Here  in  his  old  age 
he  writes,  "Finally,  be  ye  all  likeminded,  compassionate, 
loving  as  brethren,  tender-hearted,  humble-minded :  not  ren- 
dering evil  for  evil,  or  reviling  for  reviling;  but  contrariwise 
blessing,^^  .  .  .  above  all  things  being  fervent  in  your 
love  among  yourselves;  for  love  covereth  a  multitude  of 
sins. "^2  Here  is  the  doctrine  of  unlimited  forgiveness 
which  Peter  had  learned  from  the  Lord.  We  put  the  inci- 
dent and  the  parable  of  the  Gospel  behind  these  passages 
in  the  epistle  and  we  find  in  them  added  force  and  beauty  of 
meaning. 

4.  We  turn  to  the  next  chapter  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  Matthew,  the  nineteenth,  and  we  find  another  one  of 
Peter's  questions  answered  by  the  Lord.  Jesus  had  sent  the 
rich  young  ruler  away  and  he  had  talked  to  the  disciples 
about  the  great  peril  of  riches;  and  then  we  read  that  Peter 
answered  and  said  to  him,  "Lo,  we  have  left  all,  and  fol- 
lowed thee;  what  then  shall  we  have?"^^  Peter  was  prac- 
tical above  all  things.  As  we  have  suggested,  he  was  lack- 
ing a  little  in  fineness  of  feeling.  There  was  something 
which  must  have  been  more  or  less  offensive  to  the  sensitive 

"  Matt.  18.  21-35.  "  I  Pet.  3.  8.  9^ 

»  I  Pet.  4.  8.  M  Matt.  19.  27. 


152         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

soul  of  Jesus  in  this  coarse  suggestion  of  the  necessity  of  an 
adequate  reward  for  all  their  sacrifice  in  his  behalf.  He 
answered  the  question  gently  and  generously  enough,  but 
it  must  have  hurt  him  nevertheless.  He  said:  "Peter,  you 
shall  have  an  adequate  reward.  You  shall  be  repaid  an  hun- 
dredfold. You  shall  wear  a  crown  and  sit  upon  a  throne 
in  eternal  life."  Here  in  the  epistle  Peter  recalls  this  prom- 
ise and  he  writes  to  the  elect  that  God  hath  begotten  them 
"unto  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  that 
fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven"^^  for  them,  and  that 
"when  the  chief  Shepherd  shall  be  manifested,"  they  "shall 
receive  the  crown  of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away."^^ 

5.  There  is  one  very  peculiar  expression  in  this  epistle. 
There  are  many  peculiar  expressions,  but  there  is  one  which 
cannot  be  paralleled  in  the  Septuagint  or  in  the  Apocrypha 
or  in  classical  Greek  before  Peter's  time.  He  says,  "Yea,  all 
of  you  gird  yourselves  with  humihty,  to  serve  one  an- 
other."^^  The  Greek  TaneivocpQoovvrjv  eyKOfifBufJaade  is  with- 
out parallel  in  pre-Christian  Greek  literature.  Where  did 
Peter  get  his  suggestion  of  it?  Since  Dean  Alford  referred 
us  to  that  scene  of  the  feet-washing  in  the  upper  room 
many  scholars  have  been  disposed  to  find  the  explanation  of 
it  there.  It  was  the  Lord's  last  acted  sermon  on  humility. 
John  records  it.  "Jesus  riseth  from  supper,  and  layeth 
aside  his  garments ;  and  he  took  a  towel,  and  girded  himself, 
.  .  .  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet,  and  to  wipe 
them  with  the  towel  wherewith  he  was  girded.  So  he 
cometh  to  Simon  Peter."^"^  Could  Peter  ever  forget  any 
detail  of  that  scene?  Here  in  the  epistle  he  thinks  of  that 
towel  wherewith  Jesus  had  girded  himself  and  he  exhorts 
his  readers  to  gird  themselves  with  humility,  even  as  Jesus 
had  girded  himself  with  that  towel,  to  serve  one  another. 
The  girding  with  the  towel  was  to  confine  the  loosely  flow- 

"  I  Pet.  1.4.  «  I  Pet.  5.  4. 

«  I  Pet.  5.  5.  "  John  13.  4-6. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  153 

ing  Oriental  robe  so  that  it  would  not  be  in  the  way  of  the 
menial  service.  Peter  here  in  his  old  age  thinks  that  humil- 
ity might  be  such  a  girdle,  put  on  for  wear  and  work,  always 
in  readiness  for  service  and  protecting  the  more  ornamental 
elements  of  character.  It  is  a  striking  figure  and  it  is  made 
doubly  impressive  the  moment  we  connect  it  with  the  scene 
in  the  upper  room,  as  doubtless  Peter  did  in  his  thought. 

6.  We  read  in  this  epistle,  "Beloved,  think  it  not  strange 
concerning  the  fiery  trial  among  you,  which  cometh  upon 
you  to  prove  you,  as  though  a  strange  thing  happened  unto 
you,"^^  and  we  remember  how  Jesus  had  said  to  Peter  at  one 
time,  "Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that 
he  might  sift  you  as  wheat,"^^  and  we  know  that  a  man 
who  had  been  through  that  sifting  and  had  been  proved  by 
such  a  multitude  of  temptations  and  trials  never  could  be 
surprised  by  any  strange  or  fiery  trial  which  now  could  come 
upon  him.  He  might  be  taken  off  his  guard,  but  he  never 
would  be  surprised  by  any  form  of  attack. 

7.  Peter  had  gone  to  sleep  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane. 
In  this  epistle  he  exhorts,  "Be  sober,  be  watchful."^^  Peter 
had  fallen  away  in  the  crisis  time  and  had  denied  his  Lord. 
In  this  epistle  he  exhorts,  "Your  adversary,  the  devil,  as  a 
roaring  lion,  walketh  about,  seeking  whom  he  may  devour: 
whom  withstand  steadfast  in  your  faith. "^^  Peter  had  re- 
pented and  he  had  been  forgiven  and  he  had  become  a  monu- 
ment of  grace.  He  knows  that  God  can  save  and  keep 
saved  anyone  who  trusts  in  him.  He  says  in  this  epistle, 
"The  God  of  all  grace,  who  called  you  unto  his  eternal 
glory  in  Christ,  after  that  we  have  suffered  a  little  while, 
shall  himself  perfect,  establish,  strengthen  you."^^  Peter's 
own  experiences  give  added  point  to  his  precepts  and  prom- 
ises.   We  appreciate  them  all  the  more  when  we  remember 


w  I  Pet.  4.  12.  69  Luke  22.  31.  "o  I  Pet.  5.  8. 

"  I  Pet.  5.  8,  9.  82 1  Pet.  5.  10. 


154         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

from  whom  they  have  come  and  out  of  what  solemn  hours 
of  his  life  they  have  sprung. 

8.  Peter  had  been  an  eyewitness  of  the  last  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  this  epistle  is  filled  with  references  to  those  last 
scenes.  He  says  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  prophets 
"testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ."^^  In  the 
longest  passage  in  our  New  Testament  outside  the  Gospels 
which  has  to  do  with  Christ's  death  Peter  says,  "Christ 
also  suffered  for  you,  leaving  you  an  example,  that  ye  should 
follow  his  steps :  who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in 
his  mouth:  who,  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not  again; 
when  he  suffered,  threatened  not;  but  committed  himself 
to  him  that  judgeth  righteously:  who  his  own  self  bare  our 
sins  in  his  body  upon  the  tree,  that  we,  having  died  unto 
sins,  might  live  unto  righteousness :  by  whose  stripes  ye  were 
healed."^*  In  the  Greek  there  are  three  imperfect  tenses, 
leading  up  to  the  aorist  tense  of  the  final  supreme  act  of  sac- 
rifice. OvK  avreXoiSopei,  he  was  not  reviling,  ovk  ijTTeiXei,  he 
was  not  threatening,  Trapedidov,  he  was  committing  himself ; 
these  tenses  describe  the  continuous  patient  self-surrender 
of  the  Lord.  Then  the  aorist,  'AvrjveyKev^  suggests  that  he 
bore  once  for  all  our  sins  upon  the  tree.  To  ^Xov,  the  tree, 
is  the  word  which  Peter  had  used  twice  in  the  speeches  re- 
corded in  the  book  of  Acts.  There  Peter  said  to  the 
high  priest  and  the  council,  "Ye  slew"  Jesus,  "hanging  him 
on  a  tree  [KpefJ-doavTe^  km  ^Xov]."^^  In  preaching  to  Cor- 
nelius and  his  family  Peter  repeated  the  phrase,  "Whom  also 
they  slew,  hanging  him  on  a  tree."^^  When  peculiar  terms 
of  this  sort  occur  in  both  the  epistle  and  the  Petrine  speeches 
recorded  in  the  book  of  Acts,  they  would  seem  to  witness 
to  the  genuineness  of  both.  The  word  ficoXcjrp  is  in  the  sin- 
gular and  it  is  not  found  anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  it  stands  for  the  bruise  or  weal  charged  with 

«  I  Pet.  I.  II.  "I  Pet.  2.  21-24. 

«  Acts  5.  30.  *«  Acts  xo.  39. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  155 

blood  left  upon  the  crushed  flesh  by  the  blow  of  the  Roman 
thong,  sharpened  with  bone  or  lead.  We  translate  it 
"stripes,"  but  Peter  seems  to  have  remembered  the  bleeding 
back  of  Jesus  as  all  one  lurid  bruise  or  weal.  He  puts  the 
word  into  the  singular  to  represent  that  vivid  fact. 

In  this  one  sentence,  then,  we  have  the  suggestion  of  the 
dignified  silence  of  Jesus  under  the  taunts  of  his  foes,  his 
patience  through  all  the  unutterable  suffering,  the  agony  of 
the  scourging,  and  the  redemptive  finality  of  the  crucifixion ; 
and  the  whole  sentence  from  beginning  to  end  bears  witness 
to  Peter's  own  observation  and  unforgettable  memories  con- 
nected with  these  things.  He  comes  back  to  the  sufferings 
of  Jesus  again  and  again.  "Christ  also  suffered  for  sins 
once."*^  "Christ  suffered  in  the  flesh."^^  "Insomuch  as  ye 
are  partakers  of  Christ's  sufferings,  rejoice."^®  James 
wrote  an  epistle  of  about  the  same  length  as  this  Epistle  of 
Peter  and  in  it  there  is  scarcely  a  single  reference  to  the 
life  or  the  sufferings  of  Jesus.  He  had  not  companied  with 
Jesus  as  Peter  had.  Those  memories  of  the  last  days  of 
Jesus  had  not  been  burned  in  upon  his  mind  as  they  had 
been  upon  the  mind  of  Peter.  We  are  not  surprised  that 
when  Peter,  the  generous-hearted  and  sympathetic  apostle, 
sits  down  to  write,  a  whole  generation  after  the  events  of 
the  crucifixion  and  the  resurrection,  he  fills  his  pages  with 
allusions  to  these  things.  He  never  could  get  away  from 
them,  even  if  he  had  so  desired.  He  had  no  such  desire. 
They  had  furnished  the  staple  of  his  preaching  all  his  life 
long.  He  would  have  nothing  else  to  preach  as  long  as  he 
lived.  He  always  had  been  and  he  always  would  be  one 
of  the  elders  who  had  been  "a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ."7o 

9.  It  is  noticeable  that  in  Peter's  mind  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  are  connected  with  the  glory  consequent  upon  them 

"  I  Pet.  3.  18.  » I  Pet.  4.  I. 

^»  I  Pet.  4.  13.  «  I  Pet.  5,  2J,, 


156         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

through  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension.  He  says  that 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  prophets  "testified  beforehand 
the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glories  that  should  follow 
them.'"''!  He  says,  "Insomuch  as  ye  are  partakers  of 
Christ's  sufferings,  rejoice;  that  at  the  revelation  of  his 
glory  also  ye  may  rejoice  with  exceeding  joy.'"^^  j^g  g^ys, 
"The  elders  therefore  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  a  fel- 
lowelder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  who  am 
also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed."^^  He 
says,  "The  God  of  all  grace,  who  called  you  unto  his  eternal 
glory  in  Christ,  after  that  ye  have  suffered  a  little  while, 
shall  himself  perfect,  stablish,  strengthen  you.'"^^  Peter 
had  rebelled  at  first  when  he  had  heard  that  Jesus  must 
suffer  and  die,  but  later  he  had  been  granted  a  glimpse  of 
the  transfiguration  glory  and  he  had  become  more  recon- 
ciled to  the  inevitable. 

The  resurrection  and  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Lord 
to  Peter  alone  and  to  Peter  with  the  other  disciples  had 
implanted  an  imperishable  hope  within  him.  He  was  of  a 
hopeful  nature  always.  His  hope  became  dominant  and 
characteristic  during  his  later  apostleship.  While  Paul  was 
the  apostle  of  faith,  John  the  apostle  of  love,  and  James 
the  apostle  of  good  works,  Peter  was  the  apostle  of  hope. 
Beyschlag  summarizes  Peter's  conception  of  Christianity  in 
this  one  sentence,  "Salvation  in  Christ  is  the  gracious  divine 
imparting  of  a  sanctifying  hope." 

The  characteristic  hopefulness  of  the  apostle  is  apparent 
throughout  this  epistle.  Peter's  eye  is  fixed  upon  the 
glorious  consummation.  He  longs  for  it  and  strives  toward 
it  with  all  the  energy  he  has.  He  says  that  "God  begat  us 
again  unto  a  living  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  dead,  unto  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  and  un- 
defiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven  for 

"  I  Pet.  I.  II.  7!"  I  Pet.  4.  13. 

"i  Pet.  5.  I.  74 1  Pet.  5.  10. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  157 

you.'"^^  He  says  that  God  "raised  him  from  the  dead,  and 
gave  him  glory;  so  that  your  faith  and  hope  might  be  in 
God.""*  He  says,  Be  "ready  always  to  give  answer  to  every 
man  that  asketh  you  a  reason  concerning  the  hope  that  is 
in  you.'"^'^  He  says  that  the  long  suffering  of  God  "doth 
now  save  you,  .  .  .  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ;  who  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  having  gone  into 
heaven.'"^^  He  says,  "When  the  chief  Shepherd  shall  be 
manifested,  ye  shall  receive  the  crown  of  glory  that  fadeth 
not  away."^^  There  is  a  note  of  exultation  in  this  epistle. 
The  day  of  "the  revelation  of  the  glory  of  Christ"  is  near 
at  hand.  It  will  be  the  day  of  the  great  reward.  The  night 
is  near  spent.  The  morning  draws  nigh.  When  the  glory 
light  breaks  there  will  be  crowns  and  thrones  and  a  fadeless 
inheritance  to  all  who  follow  after  their  Lord  into  Im- 
manuel's  land. 

10.  There  are  reminiscences  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  here 
and  there  in  the  Epistle.  Some  of  these  we  have  noticed, 
but  there  are  some  others  which  deserve  mention.  We  find 
Peter  writing,  "Fear  God,"^°  and  again,  "Who  is  he  that 
will  harm  you,  if  ye  be  zealous  of  that  which  is  good? 
.  .  .  fear  not  their  fear,  neither  be  troubled,"^^  and  we 
remember  how  Jesus  said,  "Let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled,"^^  and,  "Be  not  afraid  of  them  which  kill  the  body, 
but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  which 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell,"^^  and  we  are 
sure  that  Peter  would  remember  these  sayings  even  more 
readily  and  more  definitely  than  we  do,  and  we  more  than 
suspect  that  they  were  in  his  mind  as  he  wrote.  We  find 
Peter  writing,  "If  a  man  suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not 
be  ashamed;  but  let  him  glorify  God  in  this  name,"^^  and 

»  I  Pet.  I.  3,  4.  78 1  Pet.  I.  21.  "  I  Pet.  3.  15. 

"  I  Pet.  3.  21,  22.  '» I  Pet.  5.  4.  8"  I  Pet.  2.  17. 

81  I  Pet.  3.  13,  14.  82  John  14^  i_  83  Matt.  10.  28. 
8<  I  Pet.  4.  16. 


158         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

again,  "Having  your  behavior  seemly  among  the  Gentiles; 
that,  wherein  they  speak  against  you  as  evildoers,  they  may 
by  your  good  works,  which  they  behold,  glorify  God  in  the 
day  of  visitation,"*'^  and  we  remember  what  Jesus  said  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  "Even  so  let  your  light  shine  be- 
fore men;  that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  and  glorify 
your  Father  who  is  in  heaven. "8«  It  would  seem  almost 
certain  that  Peter  had  these  words  of  the  Master  in  mind 
as  he  wrote. 

As  Peter  exhorts,  "Fear  God.  Honor  the  king,"*'  does 
he  recall  that  day  when  Jesus  said  to  the  questioning  Phar- 
isees and  Herodians,  "Render  therefore  unto  Caesar  the 
things  that  are  Caesar's;  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are 
God's"  ?*^  When  he  says,  "Casting  all  your  anxiety  upon 
him,  because  he  careth  for  you,"*'^  is  he  not  surely  thinking 
of  what  the  Master  said  on  the  mountaintop,  "Therefore  I 
say  unto  you,  Be  not  anxious  for  your  life.  .  .  .  And 
which  of  you  by  being  anxious  can  add  one  cubit  unto  the 
measure  of  his  life?  And  why  are  ye  anxious  concerning 
raiment?  ...  Be  not  therefore  anxious,  saying.  What 
shall  we  eat?  or  What  shall  we  drink?  or.  Wherewithal 
shall  we  be  clothed?  ...  Be  not  therefore  anxious 
for  the  morrow:  for  the  morrow  will  be  anxious  for  it- 
self "^^?  The  last  beatitude  recorded  in  the  Gospels  was 
spoken  by  the  risen  Lord  to  Thomas :  "Blessed  are  they  that 
have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed."®^  We  cannot  doubt 
that  Peter  had  this  promise  in  mind  when  he  writes  in  this 
epistle  in  almost  identical  words,  "Whom  not  having  seen 
ye  love;  on  whom,  though  now  ye  see  him  not,  yet  believ- 
ing>  ye  rejoice  greatly  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of 
glory."^2  Peter  knew  that  the  Lord's  beatitude  had  been 
fulfilled  to  them. 

86  I  Pet.  2.  12.  86  Matt.  5.  16.  «  I  Pet.  2.  17. 

«8  Matt.  22.  21.  «•  I  Pet.  5.  7.  »o  Matt.  6.  25-34. 

«  John  20.  29.  »2 1  pet;_  i^  8_ 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  159 

II.  A  great  commission  had  been  given  Peter.  The  Lord 
had  said  to  him,  "Do  thou,  when  once  thou  hast  turned 
again,  stabHsh  thy  brethren,"  arTJpiaov  rovg  adeX^ovg  oov.^^ 
This  whole  epistle  bears  witness  to  the  faithfulness  with 
which  Peter  fulfilled  that  task,  and  when  at  the  close  of  it 
we  find  him  repeating  the  very  word  used  by  Jesus  we  think 
that  in  all  probability  he  had  that  commission  of  Jesus  in 
mind  as  he  wrote.  He  says,  "The  God  of  all  grace  .  .  . 
shall  himself  perfect,"  KaraQxiaei,  make  you  fit,  all  right  in 
every  particular,  "stabHsh,"  arrigi^ei,  make  you  firm,  stead- 
fast in  everything,  "strengthen  you,"  odevcjaei,  make  you 
strong,  capable  of  anything.^*  After  the  resurrection 
Peter's  commission  was  renewed.  Three  times  the  Lord 
said  to  him,  "Feed  my  lambs,"  "Tend  my  sheep,"  "Feed  my 
sheep."^^  John  the  Baptist  had  introduced  Jesus  to  his 
disciples  with  that  memorable  title,  "Behold,  the  Lamb  of 
God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  !"^^  Peter  re- 
peats that  doctrine  and  that  title  in  his  epistle,  "Ye  were 
redeemed  .  .  .  with  precious  blood,  as  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot,  even  the  blood  of  Christ."^'^ 

As  Christ  was  the  Lamb  of  God,  so  Christians  are  the 
flock  of  God.  Had  not  Jesus  said  that  the  people  were  as 
sheep  without  a  shepherd  until  he,  the  Good  Shepherd, 
came?  Could  Peter  ever  forget  that  parable  of  the  lost 
sheep?  If  he  forgot  everything  else  the  Master  said,  would 
he  not  remember  the  terms  of  his  own  last  commission? 
As  Jesus  was  the  great  shepherd  of  the  sheep  he  had  said 
that  Peter  should  be  an  undershepherd,  tending  the  lambs 
and  feeding  the  sheep  of  the  flock  over  which  Jesus  had 
put  him  in  charge.  That  responsibility  Peter  passes  on  in 
this  epistle  to  the  other  elders  of  the  church.  He  says  of 
all  the  Christian  brethren,  "Ye  were  going  astray  like  sheep ; 
but  are  now  returned  unto  the  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of 

»3  Luke  22.  32.  w  I  Pet.  5,  10.  «  John  21.  15-17. 

"  John  I.  29.  "I  Pet.  I.  18,  19. 


i6o         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

your  souls. "^^  Then  he  exhorts  the  elders  of  the  church, 
"Tend  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  .  .  .  mak- 
ing yourselves  ensamples  to  the  flock.  And  when  the  chief 
Shepherd  shall  be  manifested,  ye  shall  receive  the  crown  of 
glory  that  fadeth  not  away."^^ 

12.  Peter  was  called  by  the  church  the  apostle  of  the  cir- 
cumcision. He  never  mentions  the  law  anywhere  in  this 
epistle,  but  that  he  was  a  loyal  Jew  is  apparent  in  his  de- 
pendence upon  the  Old  Testament  for  his  theological  con- 
ceptions throughout.  To  him  the  Christians  are  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  old  Jewish  Church.  They  are  now  "an  elect 
race,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  people  for  God's 
own  possession,"i°o  "^hg  house  of  God,"i*^i  "^he  flock  of 
God."io2 

13.  Peter's  experience  with  Cornelius  is  suggested  at  one 
point  in  the  epistle.  Peter  had  believed  that  no  one  outside 
the  Jewish  Church  was  accepted  of  God.  There  might  be 
good  people  apart  from  the  Jews  but  they  never  could  have 
the  spiritual  privileges  of  the  people  of  God.  Cornelius  was 
such  a  man.  He  was  a  devout  man  and  he  feared  God,  and 
his  whole  house  was  influenced  by  his  godly  example  to  join 
with  him  in  his  devotions.  He  was  a  generous  man  who 
gave  much  money  to  needy  people  irrespective  of  what  race 
or  religion  they  might  represent.  He  had  the  habit  of 
prayer.  He  prayed  to  God,  not  occasionally  nor  at  times  of 
special  and  dire  need,  but  always.  These  things  are  true 
of  many  a  Unitarian  and  many  a  Roman  Catholic  and  many 
a  Mohammedan  and  many  a  Jew,  and  there  are  those  who 
think  that  there  can  be  no  salvation  for  such  people.  Peter 
had  his  eyes  opened  by  his  housetop  vision,  and  he  said, 
"Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons: 
but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  right- 
eousness, is  acceptable  to  him."i<^3     Peter  said  this  before 

»8 1  Pet.  2.  25.  99  I  Pet.  5.  2-4.  i^o  I  Pet.  2.  9. 

"1 1  Pet.  4.  17.  102  I  Pet.  5.  2.  ">"  Acts  10.  34. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  i6i 

Cornelius  had  had  the  emotional  experience  of  the  filling 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  ecstatic  experience  of  the  speak- 
ing with  tongues  and  the  ecclesiastical  experience  of  the 
baptism  with  water.  The  catholicity  of  spirit  which  Peter 
manifested  at  Caesarea  he  suggests  here  in  the  epistle.  He 
says  that  God  will  hear  every  good  man's  prayer.  "If  ye 
call  on  him  as  Father,  who  without  respect  of  persons 
judgeth  according  to  each  man's  work,  pass  the  time  of 
your  sojourning  in  fear.''^^^  If  any  man  was  like  Cor- 
neHus  and  feared  God  and  prayed  always,  he  would  find 
that  God  was  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  would  accept  a 
devout  heathen  as  well  as  a  devout  evangelical. 

From  between  the  lines  of  this  epistle  we  see  Peter's 
face  looking  out  at  us.  It  is  the  face  of  an  aged  saint, 
weather-beaten  still,  but  mellowed  by  years  of  experience 
of  the  grace  of  God.  The  voice  which  speaks  to  us  here  is 
the  voice  of  Peter.  He  makes  no  direct  reference  to  the 
many  experiences  out  of  which  these  precepts  were  born, 
but  we  have  found  that  they  bear  unmistakable  traces  of 
their  origin  in  the  narratives  preserved  in  the  Gospels  and 
the  book  of  Acts. 

III.  Dependence  upon  the  Pauline  Epistles 

When  we  find  a  constant  series  of  resemblances  between 
two  writers  we  feel  sure  that  the  one  has  been  acquainted 
with  the  other  and  that  his  style  and  vocabulary  and  thought 
have  been  influenced  by  the  other.  The  question  may  be 
an  open  one  as  to  which  has  been  the  borrower,  but  that 
one  of  the  two  has  been  dependent  upon  the  other  seems 
sure.  When  we  compare  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  we  find  the  same  ideas  following 
in  the  same  order  in  certain  passages,  the  repetition  of  the 
same  words  and  phrases,  some  of  which  are  rather  rare 

iM  I  Pet.  I.  17. 


i62         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

and  two  of  which  at  least  are  not  to  be  found  elsewhere 
in  the  New  Testament,  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament 
similarly  combined,  a  quotation  with  the  same  variations 
from  the  Septuagint  version,  the  same  metaphors  and  the 
same  doctrines  so  similarly  expressed  that  all  critics  are 
agreed  that  a  literary  relationship  between  the  two  epistles 
is  not  to  be  denied. 

Practically  all  the  authorities  are  agreed  that  the  orig- 
inality is  with  Paul  and  the  dependence  is  on  the  side  of 
Peter,  Sanday  says:  "Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  of 
the  two  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  the  earlier.  Paul  works 
out  a  thesis  clearly  and  logically;  Peter  gives  a  series  of 
maxims  for  which  he  is  largely  indebted  to  Paul.  For  ex- 
ample, in  Rom.  13.  7  we  have  a  broad  general  principle  laid 
down;  Peter,  clearly  influenced  by  the  phraseology  of  that 
passage,  merely  gives  three  rules  of  conduct.  In  Paul  the 
language  and  the  ideas  come  out  of  the  sequence  of  thought; 
in  Peter  they  are  adopted  because  they  had  already  been 
used  for  the  same  purpose.  This  relation  between  the  two 
epistles  is  supported  by  other  independent  evidence.  The 
same  relation  which  prevails  between  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  also  found  to  exist 
between  it  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  the  same 
hypothesis  harmonizes  best  with  the  fact  in  that  case  also. 
The  three  epistles  are  all  connected  with  Rome;  one  of 
them  being  written  to  the  city,  the  other  two  in  all  prob- 
abihty  being  written  from  it."^05  j^g  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans was  treasured  by  the  church  in  the  city  of  Rome 
when  Peter  arrived  in  that  place.  It  would  not  be  surpris- 
ing, either,  if  a  copy  had  been  made  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  before  it  was  sent  away  from  the  city  of  Rome, 
and  that  the  church  in  Rome  prized  it  almost  equally  with 
the  epistle  written  to  them. 


Sanday,  Commentary  on  Romans,  p.  Ixxvi. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  163 

Peter  was  not  a  theologian,  and  he  was  not  prone  to 
speculation,  and  he  made  no  claim  to  originality  of  thought. 
He  found  these  Pauline  Epistles  in  high  repute  in  the 
church,  and  he  found  himself  in  agreement  with  their  teach- 
ing, and  he  made  himself  familiar  with  them  and  their 
phraseology,  and  their  thought  took  possession  of  his  mind. 
Then  when  he  sat  down  to  write  or  to  dictate  an  epistle  of 
his  own,  the  ideas  and  the  terms  which  had  become  familiar 
to  him  in  these  great  epistles  of  Paul  flowed  naturally  from 
his  lips  or  from  his  pen.  He  even  uses  the  Pauline  phrase 
"in  Christ"  three  times.  He  begins  with  "Blessed  be  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  just  as  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  does.  Parallels  have  been  pointed 
out  between  this  epistle  and  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thes- 
salonians  and  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  It  has 
been  said  that  there  are  more  reminiscences  of  the  language 
of  Paul  in  this  epistle  than  there  are  of  the  language  of 
Jesus.  There  are  enough  of  them  to  make  it  clear  that 
Peter  had  some  acquaintance  with  these  Epistles  of  Paul 
and  that,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  he  made  his  own 
epistle  upon  their  model  at  many  points. 

There  is  no  dishonest  plagiarism  in  the  Epistle  of  Peter 
and  there  is  no  slavish  imitation  of  Paul.  There  is  just 
such  an  innocent  and  hearty  appropriation  of  things  which 
seemed  to  him  good  as  a  generous  soul  like  Peter  would 
be  apt  to  make.  He  always  was  susceptible  to  outside  in- 
fluences, and  in  his  later  days  more  especially  to  all  influ- 
ences which  were  good.  He  never  seemed  to  bear  any 
grudge  against  Paul.  He  never  tried  to  retaliate  for  the  un- 
pleasant hours  Paul  had  given  him  at  Antioch.  He  seems 
heartily  to  have  repented  his  own  conduct  and  heartily  to 
have  admired  the  character  of  the  man  who  showed  him 
to  be  in  the  wrong.  It  is  wholly  to  Peter's  credit  that  he 
seems  to  recognize  the  genius  and  the  devotion  of  Paul  and 


i64         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

to  honor  him  for  what  he  was — the  superior  in  many  re- 
spects of  all  of  the  original  Twelve, 

IV.  Date  of  the  Epistle 

1.  The  contents  of  the  epistle  itself  lead  us  to  think  that 
it  was  written  at  the  time  of  some  fiery  trial  to  the  Chris- 
tians, and  that  the  very  name  which  they  bore  was  a  cause 
of  persecution  and  suffering.  Christians  might  do  well 
and  yet  suffer  for  it.  They  were  subject  to  interference 
from  the  authorities  and  to  legal  penalties  for  the  observ- 
ance of  the  worship  required  by  their  faith. 

2.  If  the  parallels  pointed  out  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  be 
granted  and  the  priority  of  these  epistles  be  allowed,  it  fol- 
lows that  this  epistle  must  have  been  written  later  than 
the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Ephesians 
and  possibly  even  later  than  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  That 
would  mean  some  time  later  than  the  first  Roman  imprison- 
ment of  Paul,  and  possibly  even  later  than  his  second  im- 
prisonment. 

3.  The  epistle  is  dated  about  the  year  A.  D.  64  by  Bleek, 
Bartlet,  Chase,  Cook,  Lightfoot,  Renan,  Zahn.  These  think 
that  the  epistle  was  written  just  before  the  outbreak  of  the 
persecution  under  Nero  and  that  Peter  died  only  a  little 
later  in  the  Christian  massacre  of  that  time.  It  seems  more 
probable  to  many  others  that  the  epistle  was  written  after 
the  Neronian  crisis,  somewhere  in  the  years  between  A.  D. 
64  and  67.  Among  these  we  may  mention  Adeney,  Bacon, 
Beyschlag,  Eichhorn,  Ewald,  Farrar,  Grimm,  Hatch,  Hort, 
Hug,  Huther,  Moffatt,  Neander,  Plumptre,  Salmon,  Schafer, 
Sieffert,  Thiersch,  and  De  Wette. 

V.  Place  of  Writing 

In  5.  13  we  read,  "She  that  is  in  Babylon,  elect  together 
with  you,  saluteth  you."  Since  such  salutations  usually  were 
sent  from  those  present  with  the  writer,  it  would  follow 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  165 

that  Peter  himself  was  in  Babylon  at  the  time  the  epistle  was 
written.    What  Babylon  is  this  ? 

I.  The  ready  answer,  of  course,  would  be  that  it  is  the 
world-famous  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates  River.  Adam 
Clarke,  Dean  Howson,  Bernhard  Weiss,  Michaelis,  Grimm, 
Hase,  Calvin,  Johnstone,  Dean  Alford,  Dean  Stanley,  and 
others  so  conclude.  They  say  (i)  Peter's  mission  was  to  the 
Jews  rather  than  to  the  Gentiles,  As  far  as  we  know  he  la- 
bored only  among  the  Jews.  The  last  time  he  appears  in  any 
historical  record  he  is  in  the  church  at  Antioch.  It  is  a  very 
poorly  sustained  tradition  of  the  later  days  which  sends 
Peter  to  Rome  or  anywhere  in  the  West.  The  five  churches 
to  which  this  epistle  is  sent  are  all  Eastern  churches,  and 
it  is  altogether  likely  that  all  of  Peter's  missionary  activity 
was  in  the  East.  It  is  well  known  that  there  was  a  con- 
siderable Jewish  colony  in  the  Babylon  of  Mesopotamia. 
Why,  then,  should  anyone  question  the  fact  that  Peter  had 
come  to  this  city  in  his  missionary  work  and  that  this 
epistle  was  written  from  this  place? 

(2)  The  order  in  which  the  countries  are  named  in  the 
address,  "to  the  elect  who  are  sojourners  of  the  Dispersion 
in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,"!*^^ 
shows  that  the  writer  was  in  the  East  and  so  naturally 
names  these  provinces  in  the  order  of  their  proximity  to 
himself,  beginning  at  the  north  and  naming  them  in  succes- 
sion as  his  thought  travels  on  from  one  to  another  to  the 
farther  west.  This  order  would  be  most  unnatural  in  one 
who  was  writing  from  the  farther  west  to  sojourners  in  the 
provinces  east  of  him. 

(3)  What  possible  good  reason  can  there  be  for  giving 
an  allegorical  interpretation  to  the  name  "Babylon"  here? 
There  is  no  trace  of  any  allegory  anywhere  else  in  the  epistle. 
Peter  says  in  the  preceding  sentence  that  he  sends  the 


"•  I  Pet.  I.  I. 


i66         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

epistle  by  Silvanus,  his  faithful  brother.  No  one  thinks  of 
interpreting  Silvanus  allegorically.  Silvanus  is  a  real  man, 
of  v^hom  we  know  many  things  from  other  sources.  In 
the  sentence  next  following  Peter  sends  greeting  from  Mark, 
his  son.  No  one  thinks  of  interpreting  that  proper  name 
allegorically.  Mark  was  a  real  man  of  whom  we  know 
much  from  other  sources.  If  Silvanus  and  Mark  are  not 
allegorical,  why  should  this  proper  name  coming  between 
them  be  considered  allegorical?  It  ought  to  be  interpreted 
as  literally  as  they.  If  that  be  true,  then  the  Mesopotamian 
Babylon  must  be  meant. 

Opponents  of  this  position  reply  that  there  is  no  trace  of 
any  ecclesiastical  tradition  that  Peter  ever  went  into  Meso- 
potamia or  ever  resided  in  Babylon,  and  it  does  not  seem 
probable  that  Peter  would  visit  that  city  and  that  he  would 
meet  Silas  and  Mark  there. 

2.  A  small  group  of  critics — Le  Clerc,  Greswell,  Mill, 
Pearson,  Pott,  and  others — ^have  thought  of  an  Egyptian 
Babylon,  a  Roman  fortress  in  Old  Cairo;  but  the  tradition 
which  connects  Mark  with  Egypt  and  the  possible  Egyptian 
origin  of  some  of  the  apocryphal  Petrine  books  would  not 
seem  to  furnish  a  sufficient  basis  for  any  conclusion  that 
Peter  lived  in  Egypt  and  wrote  from  that  land. 

3.  We  are  disposed  to  believe  that  those  authorities  who 
say  that  the  epistle  was  written  from  Rome  and  that  the 
name  "Babylon"  is  used  allegorically  for  that  city  are  more 
likely  to  be  correct.  They  have  the  following  reasons  to 
adduce  for  their  position:  (i)  This  is  the  oldest  tradition 
on  the  subject.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Papias,  Eusebius, 
and  Jerome  agree  that  the  epistle  was  written  in  Rome. 
Eusebius  says,  "Peter  makes  mention  of  Mark  in  his  first 
epistle  which  they  say  that  he  wrote  in  Rome  itself  as  is 
indicated  by  him,  when  he  calls  the  city,  by  a  figure,  Baby- 
lon."i'^'''     This  tradition  falls  in  with  all  the  other  best  au- 


K^  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii,  15. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  167 

thenticated  traditions  concerning  Peter's  visit  to  Rome  and 
his  martyrdom  there.  (2)  The  tradition  is  that  the  Gospel 
according  to  Mark  was  written  in  Rome,  and  that  Peter 
and  Mark  were  together  there  at  the  time  of  its  composi- 
tion. Why  conjecture  that  Peter  and  Mark  were  together 
in  the  Babylon  of  the  Far  East  when  there  is  no  tradition 
anywhere  to  that  effect,  and  the  tradition  does  say  that 
they  were  together  in  Rome?  (3)  The  Paulinism  of  this 
epistle  is  accounted  for  most  easily  on  this  supposition. 
Pauline  influence  was  dominant  in  Rome.  The  Epistles  to 
the  Romans  and  to  the  Ephesians  were  held  in  high  repute 
there,  and  Peter  could  have  had  access  to  them  in  that  city. 
(4)  The  name  "Babylon"  is  applied  to  Rome  in  the 
Apocalypse,  and  doubtless  was  a  symbolic  name  current 
among  the  Christians  after  the  Neronian  persecution;  and 
it  could  be  explained  by  Silvanus,  the  bearer  of  the  epistle, 
if  it  needed  explanation. 

Among  those  who  represent  this  view  that  Rome  was  the 
place  of  writing  are  Ewald,  Farrar,  Hofmann,  Hort,  the 
Tubingen  school,  McClymont,  Moffatt,  Salmon,  Sieffert 
and  others.  Hort  thinks  that  the  bearer  of  the  epistle  sailed 
from  Rome  to  Pontus  and  made  a  circuit  through  the 
provinces  mentioned,  returning  to  Bithynia,  and  he  declares 
that  "the  order  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia  is  an  exact  in- 
version of  the  order  which  would  present  itself  to  a  writer 
looking  mentally  toward  Asia  Minor  from  Babylon." 

VL  Style  of  the  Epistle 

I.  The  Greek  of  this  epistle  is  surprisingly  good.  Many 
authorities  think  that  fact  proves  that  Peter  himself  can- 
not be  responsible  for  it,  and  there  is  a  growing  tendency 
among  modern  writers  to  emphasize  the  part  which  Silvanus 
has  played  in  the  composition.  They  interpret  the  phrase, 
"  6cd  liXovavov  vfilv  eypaipa,  by    Silvanus    I    have    written 


i68         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

unto  you,"^^^  to  mean  that  Peter  furnished  the  thoughts 
and  Silvanus  poHshed  them  up  and  put  them  into  the  good 
Greek  in  which  they  now  appear.  That  may  have  been  true. 
The  writer  of  the  epistle  knows  the  difference  between  good 
and  bad  Greek  and  while  he  himself  was  not  a  Greek,  he 
knows  how  to  use  the  language  with  a  degree  of  correctness 
not  found  in  many  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  he  thought  in  Hebrew  and  trans- 
lated his  thought  into  Greek.  There  are  no  Latinisms. 
There  are  very  few  colloquialisms. 

In  the  Greek  of  the  epistle  the  following  features  are  note- 
worthy: (i)  There  is  an  extraordinary  number  of  peculiar 
expressions.  There  are  sixty-two  single  words  in  the  epistle 
which  do  not  occur  in  any  other  of  the  New  Testament 
books.  In  the  two  epistles,  First  and  Second  Peter,  there 
are  one  hundred  and  sixteen  of  these  hapax  legomena,  and 
only  one  of  the  one  hundred  and  sixteen  is  to  be  found  in 
both  epistles.  This  unusual  vocabulary  seems  to  have  been 
influenced  considerably  by  the  Books  of  Maccabees  and  the 
Book  of  Wisdom  in  the  Apocrypha.  (2)  "The  article  is 
employed  in  more  classical  style  than  by  any  other  writer  in 
the  New  Testament. "i*^^  (3)  "Av  never  is  used,  and  there 
are  very  few  connecting  particles.  "This  fact  alone  is  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  the  writer  was  not  a  Greek."ii<^ 

2.  There  is  evidence  of  considerable  literary  taste  and 
oratorical  power  in  the  composition  of  the  epistle.  Peter 
seems  to  delight  in  putting  a  thing  positively  and  then  nega- 
tively.   He  arrays  opposites  side  by  side  with  teUing  effect. 

3.  Peter  had  a  poetic  streak  in  him.  (i)  Figures  of 
speech  abound  in  this  epistle,  and  especially  such  as  relate 
to  the  sight.  The  salvation  which  Peter  preached  was  such 
as  would  be  able  to  be  observed  in  the  end.  It  was  ready  to 
be  revealed  in  the  last  time.^^^     Peter  says  that  the  mys- 

"»  I  Pet.  5.  12.  »"•  Bigg,  Commentary,  p.  4. 

"»Bigg,  op  cil.,  p.  5.  "» I  Pet.  i.  5. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  169 

teries  of  the  gospel  are  such  things  as  "angels  desire  to  look 
into."^^^  The  Gentiles  are  to  behold  the  good  works  of  the 
Christians  and  so  glorify  God.^^^  The  day  of  the  visitation 
of  our  God  is  to  be  a  day  of  inspection,  of  looking  over 
every  man's  work.^^^  Jesus  is  the  Shepherd  and  the  Over- 
seer of  our  souls.ii^  Christ  left  us  an  example  which  we 
are  to  scrutinize  closely  and  thus  follow  exactly.ii*  The 
wives  of  ungodly  husbands  are  to  be  sermons  in  shoes, 
so  that  if  their  husbands  never  hear  the  gospel  preached 
anywhere  else  they,  nevertheless,  will  see  the  gospel  lived 
in  their  homes,  and  beholding  the  chaste  behavior  of  their 
wives  they  will  be  gained  for  the  Christ.^i'^  Peter  himself 
was  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ.^i^  He  testifies  to 
that  which  he  himself  has  seen.  The  elders  of  the  church 
are  to  exercise  oversight. ^'^^  The  chief  Shepherd  shall  be 
manifested  to  give  them  their  reward.^^o  jjig  glory  is  to  be 
revealed  amid  the  rejoicing  of  all  of  the  saints.^^i 

(2)  There  are  many  words  which  are  condensed  meta- 
phors, and  their  meaning  usually  is  much  more  apparent  in 
the  Greek  than  in  the  English  translation.  We  note  a  few 
examples  : 

{a)  We  look  again  at  that  clause,  "which  things  the 
angels  desire  to  look  into."^22  Lumby  says:  "Look  into  is 
a  feeble  expression  whereby  to  render  napaKvxpac.  The 
Greek  pictorially  expresses  the  bent  body  and  the  out- 
stretched neck  of  one  who  is  stooping  and  straining  to  gaze 
on  some  sight  which  calls  for  wonder.  Now,  except  in  the 
Epistle  of  James,  where  the  same  word  is  used  of  the  earnest 
gaze  of  the  believer  into  the  perfect  law  of  liberty,  this  verb 
is  employed  only  here  and  in  the  two  accounts  of  the  visit 
of  Peter  and  John  to  the  sepulcher  on  the  morning  of  the 


i«  I  Pet.  I.  12. 

"» I  Pet.  2.  12. 

"*  Ibid. 

>»  I  Pet.  2.  25. 

"•  I  Pet.  2.  21. 

1"  I  Pet.  3.  I,  2. 

1"  I  Pet.  5.  I. 

iM  I  Pet.  5.  2. 

"0  I  Pet.  5.  4. 

"» I  Pet.  4.  13. 

"*  I  Pet.  I.  12. 

170         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

resurrection.  Both  evangelists,  Luke  and  John,  employ  the 
same  word,  and  its  use  may  be  due  to  Peter's  narration, 
which  was  given  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles  on  their  return. 
The  word  is  exactly  descriptive  of  what  he  had  seen,  as 
John  had  reached  the  sepulcher  before  him  and  had  paused 
there  to  look  in.  It  was  the  most  pictorial  and  expressive 
word  he  could  apply  to  the  bowed  form  and  earnest  gaze 
of  his  fellow  disciple  as  he  stooped  down  and  looked  into 
the  empty  tomb.  In  that  vacant  grave  John  saw  what 
angels  had  longed  to  see.  Its  vacancy  was  the  seal  of  man's 
salvation,  the  beginning  of  the  glories  which  followed  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  the  keynote  of  the  gospel  which  pro- 
claimed, through  that  resurrection,  the  rising  again  of  all 
the  dead.  In  thought  Peter  seems  by  this  word  to  have  gone 
back  to  that  scene  by  the  grave  of  the  Lord,  and  to  have 
before  him  John's  eager  and  astonished  act  and  gaze  while 
he  bent  down  that  his  eyes  might  make  sure  of  the  truth 
of  such  things  as  the  angels  desired  to  see."i23 

(&)  "The  Father  judgeth  without  respect  of  persons,"!^* 
we  say;  but  the  word  which  Peter  uses  in  the  Greek  im- 
plies that  the  Father  does  not  receive  men  at  their  face 
value  merely.  He  looks  beneath  the  surface  and  sees  the 
realities  of  character  there.  He  respects  the  hidden  man 
of  the  heart.  He  has  little  or  no  respect  for  the  face  men 
put    on    things.      It    is    all    there    in    the    single    word, 

ttTrpOffWTroA^/LtTTTWf. 

(c)  Our  version  speaks  of  the  spiritual  milk  "which  is 
without  guile. "125  That  relative  clause  Peter  has  put  into 
a  single  word,  d6oXov,  and  did  he  not  intend  to  urge  his 
readers  to  long  for  the  spiritual,  "unadulterated"  milk, 
which  alone  was  safe  for  newborn  babes  and  which  alone 
would  insure  their  rapid  growth  in  grace?  The  infant  mor- 
tahty  in  our  great  cities  in  the  slum  districts  in  the  hot 

"'  Expositor,  I,  iv,  pp.  117,  118.        "*  i  Pet.  I.  17. 
"« I  Pet.  2.  2. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  171 

summer  season  when  no  Pasteurized  milk  can  be  obtained 
for  the  Httle  ones  gives  us  moderns  the  illustration  of  the 
^need  of  Peter's  exhortation  and  the  word  which  Peter  used 
gives  us  to  understand  that  there  was  just  as  much  adul- 
teration of  milk  in  his  day  as  in  our  own. 

(d)  The  Christians  are,  according  to  Peter,  "sojourners 
and  pilgrims  here/'^^e  They  are  not  at  home  on  this  earth. 
They  are  away  from  home  as  long  as  they  stay  here.  They 
have  a  house  not  built  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heavens, 
and  any  house  in  which  they  may  live  here  is  only  a  hotel, 
a  place  of  lodging  for  a  time.  It  is  a  frequent  figure  in  the 
Scriptures,  but  it  is  interesting  to  see  that  Peter,  the  going 
man,  always  in  motion  and  always  hurrying  toward  some 
goal,  adopts  it  as  a  picture  of  human  life. 

(e)  We  read  in  our  version,  "For  so  is  the  will  of  God, 
that  by  well-doing  ye  should  put  to  silence  the  ignorance  of 
foolish  men. "127  fhe  verb  Peter  uses  in  the  latter  clause  is 
0fju6aj  which  means  "to  muzzle."  Foolish  men  are  to  have 
their  mouths  shut  by  the  good  conduct  of  the  Christians. 
All  who  would  bark  at  them  or  bite  them  must  find  them- 
selves muzzled  by  their  well-doing.  As  a  muzzle  renders  an 
ill-tempered  cur  harmless  so  their  consistent  behavior  must 
render  harmless  the  most  malicious  of  their  foes.  The 
Greek  puts  a  very  vivid  picture  before  us  in  the  stead  of  that 
commonplace  English  translation. 

(/)  Peter  says.  Do  not  use  your  freedom,  "for  a  cloke  of 
wickedness. "128  'EmfcdXvfifia  is  the  Greek  word.  It  means 
a  veil  or  covering.  As  a  veil  would  conceal  a  maHcious  look 
or  a  homely  face  behind  an  outward  appearance  of  great 
decorum,  so  Christian  freedom  might  be  used  as  a  covering 
behind  which  malice  or  wickedness  of  any  sort  might  mas- 
querade. Antinomianism  has  always  made  this  use  of  the 
freedom  of  the  Christian  life.     Liberty  has  been  used  as 


I  Pet.  2.  II.  ^  I  Pet.  2.  15.  i»  I  Pet.  2.  16. 


172         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

a  warrant  for  license.  Freedom  has  been  made  an  excuse 
for  frailty.  Peter's  mind  saw  the  picture  of  wickedness 
skulking  behind  the  cover  of  a  profession  of  Christian 
privilege  and  he  enters  his  most  emphatic  protest  against 
such  hypocrisy  in  his  use  of  this  single  Greek  word. 

{g)  Peter  says  that  Christ  left  us  an  "example/'^^g  and 
the  word  he  uses  here  is  vnoypaiifidg,  a  copyhead.  As  a  fair 
copy  is  set  at  the  head  of  the  page  and  the  schoolboy  writes 
under  it  his  awkward  attempts  at  reproduction  and  he  does 
it  over  and  over  again  until  his  imitation  begins  to  look 
something  like  the  example  set  before  him,  so  we  are  to  see 
in  Christ  the  perfect  example  for  our  lives  and  we  are  to 
endeavor  to  reproduce  his  life  in  our  own,  and  however 
imperfect  our  first  attempts  may  be,  we  are  to  keep  at  it 
patiently  until  at  last  we  can  approximate  in  some  measure 
the  model  he  has  given  us.  That  is  all  suggested  in  the 
one  word  Peter  has  used,  and  the  definiteness  of  the  picture 
is  wholly  lost  in  the  Enghsh  translation. 

(h)  Peter  writes  "Let  none  of  you  suffer  as  a  murderer, 
or  a  thief,  or  an  evildoer,  or  as  a  meddler  in  other  men's 
matters."i3o  We  know  what  a  murderer  and  a  thief  and 
an  evildoer  are,  but  we  are  not  so  sure  about  the  last  crim- 
inal in  this  list.  He  is  represented  by  a  single  word  in  the 
original,  a  word  which  as  far  as  we  know  was  coined  by 
Peter  himself,  for  it  seems  to  be  peculiar  to  him, 
aXXorgioemoKOTTog.  It  means  literally  "a  bishop  in  the  things 
belonging  to  another."  The  authorities  differ  widely  in 
their  definitions  of  this  term.  If  we  translate  as  our  ver- 
sion does,  it  seems  like  something  of  an  anticlimax  to  be- 
gin with  a  murderer  and  end  with  a  meddler.  Possibly 
Peter  thought  it  was  a  climax.  He  may  have  said  to  him- 
self that  to  kill  a  man  outright  was  a  lesser  sin  than  to  med- 
dle with  his  affairs  and  to  muddle  them  until  his  life  was 
made  miserable  and  his  whole  career  was  wrecked. 


"»iPet.  2.  21.  »» I  Pet.  4.  15. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  173 

Ramsay  thinks  that  "the  word  refers  to  the  charge  of 
tampering  with  family  relationships,  causing  disunion  and 
discord,  rousing  discontent  and  disobedience,  and  so  on."i3i 
Nothing  could  be  much  worse  than  that.  A  murderer  can  be 
dealt  with  and  put  out  of  the  way  by  summary  legal  proc- 
esses, but  a  persistent  meddler  of  this  sort  may  maintain 
his  position  in  society  and  keep  beyond  the  reach  of  the  law 
while  at  the  same  time  he  is  the  most  sinister  and  pestiferous 
member  of  the  whole  community.  Calvin  thought  that  the 
term  stood  for  one  who  was  covetous  of  other  people's 
money,  but  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  good  ground  for 
such  a  conclusion. 

Others  have  thought  that  Peter  in  the  use  of  this  word 
was  warning  Christians  against  participation  in  trades  or 
occupations  which  would  be  inconsistent  with  their  Chris- 
tian profession.  They  must  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
heathen  theater  or  houses  of  ill- fame  or  anything  else  which 
would  disgrace  the  cause  for  which  they  stood.  Still  others 
have  suggested  that  the  word  warns  Christians  against  sedi- 
tion or  anything  contrary  to  their  duties  as  good  citizens. 
They  must  not  occupy  themselves  in  any  calling  inconsistent 
with  a  Christian  profession,  and  they  must  not  get  mixed  up 
in  any  affair  contrary  to  good  citizenship.  Any  of  these  sug- 
gestions may  have  a  measure  of  truth  in  it.  We  do  not 
know,  for  the  word  is  not  found  elsewhere  and  we  must 
guess  more  or  less  at  its  meaning  here. 

A  bishop  is  one  in  supreme  authority.  If  he  choose  he 
can  interfere  at  any  point  and  at  any  time.  To  be  sure, 
if  he  exercise  this  privilege  very  continuously,  he  is  sure 
to  become  very  unpopular.  Does  Peter  mean  to  suggest 
that  a  Christian  man  must  not  assume  that  he  is  a  supreme 
authority  and  arbiter  of  other  men's  conduct  and  therefore 
feel  called  upon  to  put  in  his  word  of  advice  or  of  protest 


"'  Ramsay,  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  293,  note  v;  p.  348,  note. 


174         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

on  all  occasions  whether  it  had  been  asked  for  or  not?  A 
man  who  does  that  can  make  himself  a  first-class  nuisance 
all  the  time.  If  he  put  in  most  of  his  time  in  overseeing 
and  superintending  his  neighbors'  affairs,  he  probably  will 
do  more  harm  than  good  to  his  neighbors  and  he  will  make 
the  Christian  profession  unpopular  to  a  degree. 

Peter  may  have  thought  that  Christians  ought  to  keep 
their  noses  out  of  what  did  not  concern  them  and  keep  their 
eyes  off  those  things  which  it  might  be  just  as  well  for  them 
not  to  see.  They  need  not  be  kill- joys  on  every  occasion. 
Their  zeal  must  not  outrun  their  discretion.  It  might  be 
comparatively  easy  for  them  to  refrain  from  murder  and 
from  thieving  and  from  any  other  patent  evil  of  that  sort, 
and  it  might  be  more  difficult  for  them  to  avoid  all  extrava- 
gances of  pious  profession  and  all  inopportunities  of  re- 
monstrance among  their  heathen  neighbors;  but  if  they 
achieved  the  last,  they  would  help  the  Christian  cause  along 
more  rapidly  than  they  could  in  any  other  way. 

A  too  zealous  Christian  might  overdo  the  thing  and  do 
much  harm.  A  too  cautious  Christian  might  underdo  the 
thing  and  miss  many  an  opportunity  of  doing  good.  A  dis- 
creet Christian  would  pursue  the  middle  course  and  be  ad- 
mired of  all  men  as  a  rare  specimen  of  good  sense  and  con- 
secration. It  may  be  that  Peter  had  had  many  a  sad  ex- 
perience as  the  result  of  his  own  impetuous  interference  in 
other  men's  affairs  in  his  earlier  days  and  that  he  had  come 
to  consider  that  prudence  at  this  point  was  a  supreme  virtue 
in  the  Christian  life.  When  he  had  intermeddled  with  the 
Master's  affairs  at  Caesarea  Philippi  he  had  been  called  a 
devil  and  the  prince  of  devils  for  his  pains.  In  these  later 
days  he  may  have  come  to  believe  that  such  interference 
was  the  superlative  sin.  The  word  which  he  uses  here  is  a 
remarkable  word  and  it  probably  presented  a  perfectly 
definite  picture  to  Peter's  mind  when  he  coined  it  and  it  is 
full  of  suggestions  to  us. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  175 

(»)  Peter  exhorts  the  elders  not  to  lord  it  over  their 
"charge,"  K^rjpojvA^^  The  noun  is  plural  and  it  means  in  the 
singular  "a  lot"  and  in  the  plural  "persons  allotted  to  one's 
care  and  oversight."  Therefore  in  this  case  it  stood  for  all 
the  laity,  for  whose  spiritual  welfare  the  clergy  was  re- 
sponsible; and  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  word  has 
come  down  to  us  with  its  meaning  reversed  and  instead 
of  the  laity  it  represents  the  clergy  themselves. 

(/)  Peter  sees  Christ  as  the  Good  Shepherd,i33  and  the 
devil  as  a  roaring  lion. 1^4  The  Christians  are  a  flock,^^^ 
protected  by  the  one  and  assailed  by  the  other. 

Farrar  says:  "The  style  of  Peter  in  this  epistle  is  charac- 
terized by  the  fire  and  energy  which  we  should  expect  to 
find  in  his  forms  of  expression;  but  that  energy  is  tem- 
pered by  the  tone  of  apostolic  dignity,  and  by  the  fatherly 
mildness  of  one  who  was  now  aged,  and  was  near  the  close 
of  a  life  of  labor.  He  speaks  with  authority,  and  yet  with 
none  of  the  threatening  sternness  of  James.  We  find  in  the 
letter  the  plain  and  forthright  spirit  of  the  man  insisting 
again  and  again  on  a  few  great  leading  conceptions.  The 
subtle  dialectics,  the  polished  irony,  the  involved  thoughts, 
the  lightninglike  rapidity  of  inference  and  suggestion,  which 
we  find  in  the  letters  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Uncircumcision, 
are  wholly  wanting  in  him.  His  causal  connections,  mark- 
ing the  natural  and  even  flow  of  his  thoughts,  are  of  the 
simplest  character;  and  yet  a  vigorously  practical  turn  of 
mind,  a  quick  susceptibility  of  influence,  and  a  large  catho- 
licity of  spirit,  such  as  we  know  that  he  possessed,  are 
stamped  upon  every  page.  He  aims  throughout  at  practical 
exhortation,  not  at  systematic  exposition;  and  his  words, 
in  their  force  and  animation,  reflect  the  simple,  sensuous, 
and  passionate  nature  of  the  impulsive  Simon  of  whom  we 
read  in  the  Gospels. "^^^ 

^  I  Pet.  5.  3.  133 1  Pet.  5.  4.  134  I  Pet.  5.  8. 

136 1  Pet.  5.  2.  "6  Farrar,  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  p.  81. 


176         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

VII.  One  Peculiar  Doctrine 

The  epistle  is  practical  and  ethical  throughout.  It  has  no 
speculative  interests  and  no  theological  subtleties  and  no 
mystic  depths.  Peter  was  a  man  of  action,  and  whatever  he 
learned  he  immediately  put  into  practice.  The  only  sancti- 
fication  in  which  he  had  much  faith  was  that  which  resulted 
in  obedience.13'^  The  only  holiness  in  which  he  believed 
was  that  which  manifested  itself  in  all  manner  of  Uving.^ss 
He  fills  his  epistle  with  exhortations  to  practical  piety,  and 
all  the  doctrinal  statements  in  the  epistle  can  be  paralleled 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  one. 
It  is  a  most  interesting  fact  that  the  Apostle  of  Hope  is  the 
only  one  to  lift  the  veil  of  sacred  revelation  over  the  fate 
of  the  impenitent  dead.  He  says,  "Christ  also  suffered  for 
sins  once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous,  that  he  might 
bring  us  to  God ;  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quick- 
ened in  the  spirit ;  in  which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto 
the  spirits  in  prison,  which  aforetime  were  disobedient,  when 
the  long-sufifering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while 
the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is,  eight  souls, 
were  saved  through  water."^^^ 

A  recent  commentator  declines  to  comment  at  any  length 
on  these  words  and  is  content  to  say  in  a  note  at  the  bottom 
of  the  page :  "There  is  so  much  dispute  regarding  the  mean- 
ing of  this  passage  that  nothing  certain  can  be  affirmed.  The 
writer  evidently  intends  to  express  the  belief  that  Christ 
visited  and  evangelized  the  world  of  the  dead;  all  beyond 
this  is  doubtful."i^<>  Suppose  we  should  accept  this  cau- 
tious conclusion,  it  yet  would  remain  true  that  Peter  alone 
was  responsible  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Harrowing  of  Hell. 
The  older  commentators  were  much  prejudiced  against  this 
doctrine  and  they  made  strenuous  effort  to  show  that  Peter 


1"  I  Pet.  I.  2.  »»  I  Pet.  I.  15. 

»»  I  Pet.  3.  18-20.  »«» Mitchell,  Commentary,  p.  268. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  177 

meant  something  other  than  that  which  he  had  said  in  this 
passage,  but  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  the  more  recent 
expositors  have  decided  that  the  only  fair  exegesis  is  that 
which  acknowledges  that  Peter  here  sets  forth  the  fact  that 
Christ  after  the  crucifixion  went  in  the  spirit  to  preach  to 
the  spirits;  and  when  we  add  the  statement  made  a  little 
farther  on  in  the  epistle,  that  "unto  this  end  was  the  gospel 
preached  even  to  the  dead,  that  they  might  be  judged 
according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  according  to 
God  in  the  spirit,"i^i  they  are  ready  to  agree  that  the 
object  of  this  preaching  was  the  salvation  of  the  lost,  the 
dead  who  had  died  disobedient  and  had  been  judged 
according  to  men  in  the  flesh.  Hart,  in  the  Expositor's 
Greek  Testament,  says  that  "the  impersonal  passive  in  the 
latter  passage  leaves  the  way  open  for  the  development  of 
the  belief  that  not  Christ  only  but  also  the  apostles  preached 
to  the  dead  :""2 

How  can  we  escape  from  these  conclusions?  We  might 
say  with  some  of  the  commentators  that  Christ  preached 
to  the  spirits  in  prison,  but  that  he  did  not  preach  any  hope 
to  them  but  simply  condemnation.  What  would  be  the  use 
of  such  preaching?  The  spirits  in  prison  must  have  known 
that  they  were  in  prison.  What  need  was  there  for  the  cruci- 
fied Jesus  to  proclaim  to  them  their  conscious  and  continuous 
state?  Was  that  a  gospel  anyway?  Gospel  is  good  news.  If 
the  gospel  was  preached  to  them,  must  it  not  have  had  in  it 
some  element  of  hope  or  good  news?  Then  does  not  Peter 
say  explicitly  that  the  gospel  was  preached  to  them  that 
they  might  live,  and  that  they  might  live  according  to  God, 
in  Godlike  spirit?  In  the  International  Critical  Commen- 
tary Bigg  says,  "Life  like  God  in  spirit  is  blessed  life;  the 
object  of  the  preaching  was  the  salvation  of  the  dead."^^^ 
Evidently,  then,  any  mere  preaching  of  condemnation  does 
not  fairly  represent  Peter's  teaching. 

"» I  Pet.  4.  6.  i«  Vol.  V,  p.  72.  »«  p.  171. 


178         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

It  has  been  suggested  again  that  the  preaching  of  Christ 
in  the  abode  of  the  dead  was  to  the  righteous  alone.  He 
preached  to  them  and  he  preached  salvation  to  them;  but 
he  preached  salvation  only  to  those  who  had  become  the 
heirs  of  immortality  by  a  righteous  life  on  earth.  Does  not 
Peter  say  that  Christ  went  in  the  spirit  to  the  spirits  in 
prison,  not  who  had  been  righteous  but  who  "aforetime  were 
disobedient"  ?  Does  he  not  say  that  the  gospel  was  preached 
to  the  dead  who  did  not  have  spiritual  life  that  they  might 
have  spiritual  life? 

Still  others  have  suggested  that  Christ  did  preach  to  the 
spirits  who  had  been  disobedient  in  life  but  only  to  those 
who  had  repented  in  the  hour  of  death.  Does  not  this  seem 
like  desperate  catching  at  straws  ?  Is  it  not  sufficient  to  say 
in  reply  to  any  such  suggestion  that  Peter  has  given  no  hint 
of  such  exceptional  cases,  but  makes  his  two  statements  as 
general  as  possible,  the  first  of  the  disobedient  in  the  time 
of  the  flood  and  the  second  of  all  the  dead?  Why  attempt 
to  torture  or  twist  Peter's  plain  meaning  into  something 
which  seems  to  us  a  little  more  orthodox?  Why  not  accept 
him  as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  if  he  alone  has  any  clear 
teaching  on  this  subject — and  nowhere  else  in  the  New 
Testament  can  anything  be  found  to  contradict  it — why  not 
accept  his  teaching  as  final  in  its  authority?  It  is  at  least 
permissible  to  hope  that  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  is 
carried  on  beyond  the  grave,  and  that  there  is  an  endless 
opportunity  for  service  in  evangeHsm  until  all  possible  souls 
have  been  won  for  the  kingdom.  In  that  vista  of  hope  for 
the  lost  and  work  for  the  saints  in  glory  and  final  triumph 
for  our  Lord  we  could  rejoice  for  evermore. 

We  always  have  thought  that  Peter  was  the  disciple  who 
asked  Jesus,  "Lord,  are  they  few  that  be  saved  ?"i**  Peter 
so  often  was  the  first  to  speak  when  any  such  question 
arose  among  the  disciples,  he  so  often  was  the  chosen  or 

1"  Luke  13.  23-30. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  179 

self-appointed  spokesman  for  the  apostolic  company;  his 
curiosity  always  was  so  keen,  and  he  was  so  apt  to  question 
when  others  were  hesitant  or  more  reverent  than  he.  We  al- 
ways have  felt  sure  that  Peter  had  pressed  that  interrogation 
upon  the  Master,  and  just  as  the  Master  rebuked  Peter's 
curiosity  about  the  fate  of  John  later  and  said  to  him,  "What 
is  that  to  thee?  follow  thou  me,"  so  here  Jesus  did  not  make 
any  direct  answer  to  the  inquiry  but  said,  "Strive  to  enter 
in  by  the  narrow  door :  for  many,  I  say  unto  you,  shall  seek 
to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able."  "What  is  that  to  thee  ? 
You  see  to  it  that  you  yourself  get  into  heaven  and  leave 
the  fate  of  others  to  Him  who  doeth  all  things  well.  It  is 
enough  for  you  to  make  sure  of  your  own  salvation.  That 
is  no  easy  task.  It  will  take  all  the  energy  there  is  in  you. 
You  will  need  to  agonize  and  strive.  There  are  many  who 
seek  to  enter  and  are  not  able.  See  to  it  that  you  are  not  of 
their  number." 

That  was  a  sufficient  answer  to  idle  curiosity;  but  the 
Lord  was  not  satisfied  to  leave  the  subject  there.  He  added 
a  warning  against  trust  in  acquaintance  with  him  to  insure 
salvation  and  spoke  the  parable  of  the  shut  door  and  the 
turning  away  of  those  who  had  not  partaken  of  his  spirit 
and  lived  his  life,  and  made  it  clear  that  all  workers  of 
iniquity  should  suffer  their  due  recompense;  and  then  he 
came  back  to  the  question  which  was  responsible  for  the  dis- 
course, and  he  said:  "Are  there  few  that  be  saved?  They 
shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  from  the  north  and 
south,  and  shall  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  All  the 
ends  of  the  earth  shall  send  up  their  multitudes  of  the  saved 
through  the  open  gates  into  the  city.  And  behold,  there 
are  last  who  shall  be  first,  and  there  are  first  who  shall  be 
last ;  but  first  and  last  all  shall  enter  in."  It  may  have  been 
the  very  time  and  place  in  which  Peter  became  the  Apostle 
of  Hope.  His  Christian  optimism  may  have  found  its  origin 
in  the  revelation  of  that  discourse. 


i8o         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Here  in  his  epistle  there  is  a  reminiscence  of  his  former 
belief.  Peter  suggests  something  of  this  sort :  "There  were 
only  a  few  saved  in  the  time  of  the  Flood.  There  were 
only  eight  people  in  the  ark,  and  the  great  multitudes  out- 
side the  ark  perished  in  the  rising  waters.  There  was  a  time 
when  I  thought  that  the  church  was  like  that  ark,  and  that 
a  few  would  be  saved  in  it  while  the  vast  majority  of  the 
human  race  would  stay  outside  it  and  be  lost.  There  were 
so  few  of  us  who  followed  the  Master.  We  were  a  mere 
handful  in  the  midst  of  the  multitudes  who  were  opposed  to 
us.  I  asked  the  Master  once  whether  only  a  few  would  be 
saved,  and  he  gave  me  to  understand  that  there  might  be 
only  a  few  at  present,  but  that  the  campaign  had  but  just  be- 
gun, and  that  it  was  to  be  continued  until  every  knee  should 
bow  and  every  tongue  confess  that  Jesus  was  Lord  and 
Master  of  the  race.  That  was  to  be  true  on  earth,  and  it 
was  to  be  true  in  the  spiritual  realm.  That  meant,  of  course, 
that  the  campaign  was  to  be  carried  into  the  regions  beyond 
the  grave.  The  gospel  was  to  be  preached  to  the  spirits  in 
prison.  It  was  intended  to  set  all  captives  free.  It  was  to 
be  a  message  of  deliverance  to  all  those  who  were  bound. 
The  gospel  was  preached  to  the  dead,  that  they  might  be 
judged  indeed  according  to  men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  ac- 
cording to  God  in  the  spirit." 

Where  did  Peter  get  this  doctrine?  What  was  his  au- 
thority for  it?  He  never  would  have  been  an  innovator 
along  theological  lines.  He  never  would  have  thought 
of  enunciating  any  new  doctrine  in  the  Christian  Church 
unless  he  had  been  sure  that  he  had  the  best  of  authority 
for  it.  He  must  have  been  absolutely  sure  of  his  facts,  or 
he  never  would  have  said  that  Jesus  preached  the  gospel 
to  the  dead.  How  could  he  have  been  assured  of  such  a 
truth?  Only  by  divine  revelation.  Only  by  direct  communi- 
cation from  the  Author  of  truth  himself. 

When  was  this  revelation  given  to  Peter?    There  always 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  i8i 

has  seemed  to  be  only  one  occasion  on  which  such  a  revela- 
tion naturally  would  be  made.  We  learn  from  Paul  in  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  and  from  Luke  in  his  ac- 
count of  the  resurrection  appearances  of  the  Lord  that  there 
was  an  appearance  to  Peter  alone.  We  have  no  account 
of  that  personal  interview  which  Peter  had  with  the  risen 
Lord.  We  can  only  conjecture  what  took  place  at  that  in- 
terview and  what  words  passed  between  the  two,  the  Master 
who  had  conquered  death  and  hell  and  the  grave  and  the  dis- 
ciple who  had  been  plunged  into  the  depths  of  despair  by  the 
crucifixion.  Peter's  despair  was  turned  into  deathless 
hope  in  that  interview,  and  it  always  has  seemed  to  us  that 
the  Master  must  have  told  Peter  at  that  time  what  Peter 
has  written  down  so  clearly  and  so  unqualifiedly  in  his 
epistle.  He  knew  that  Jesus  had  preached  to  the  spirits  in 
prison  because  Jesus  himself  had  told  him  so.  He  knew 
that  the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  dead  in  order  that  they 
might  live  to  God  in  the  spirit,  because  Jesus  had  told  him 
so.  He  had  the  best  possible  authority  for  all  of  these  state- 
ments in  his  epistle,  or  he  never  would  have  ventured  to 
make  them.  He  was  no  speculative  adventurer.  He 
preached  only  what  he  had  received  from  the  Master  him- 
self in  direct  revelation. 

A  special  vision  had  been  granted  him  at  Joppa,  and  with 
that  authority  behind  him  Peter  was  ready  to  set  all  prece- 
dent at  defiance  and  blaze  the  way  into  new  regions  for  the 
preaching  of  the  Christian  faith.  Nothing  less  than  such  a 
direct  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in  the  matter  would  have 
sufficed  to  make  Peter  take  such  an  unheard-of  step  as  the 
admission  of  Gentiles  into  the  exclusively  Jewish  church; 
but  with  that  divine  direction  Peter  never  hesitated  a  min- 
ute even  though  he  knew  that  the  whole  church  might  be 
astonished  and  might  feel  outraged  by  any  such  procedure 
on  his  part.  So  in  this  particular  doctrine  Peter  would  not 
stop  to  inquire  whether  any  other  apostle  or  church  leader 


i82         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

had  promulgated  any  such  truth.  With  a  direct  divine  revela- 
tion behind  him  Peter  would  have  considered  that  sufficient. 
He  would  have  proclaimed  the  truth  revealed  to  him  even 
though  he  knew  that  the  whole  church  might  be  astonished 
and  might  feel  outraged  by  any  such  procedure  on  his  part. 
With  the  conception  of  Peter's  character  which  we  have 
from  a  study  of  all  that  is  told  about  him  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment we  are  inclined  to  feel  that  if  Peter  in  his  epistle  sets 
forth  one  peculiar  doctrine,  that  doctrine  must  have  behind 
it  a  peculiar  divine  authority.  Nothing  less  would  account 
for  it.  Peter  is  not  one  to  originate  anything  in  theology. 
He  is  a  plain,  practical  man,  not  given  to  philosophizing  or 
speculation.  However,  he  was  a  man  prone  to  ask  ques- 
tions ;  and  he  had  a  great  curiosity  concerning  the  future  of 
himself  and  his  associates  and  everybody  else.  We  know 
of  no  question  which  Peter  would  be  so  likely  to  ask  the 
risen  Lord  as  that  old  question,  "Are  they  few  that  be 
saved?  How  about  all  the  disobedient  dead?"  We  know 
of  no  revelation  of  the  risen  Lord  to  Peter  which  would 
be  so  likely  to  give  him  his  character  of  the  Apostle  of  Hope 
as  the  revelation  which  Peter  has  put  into  his  epistle  as  its 
one  peculiar  feature.  There  is  nothing  in  the  epistle  to 
which  we  would  give  more  weight. 

VHL  Genuineness  of  the  Epistle 

There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  questioning  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  writing.  We  may  be  uncertain  as  to  the  share 
which  Silvanus  had  in  its  composition,  but  the  unbroken 
tradition  is  that  Peter  is  responsible  for  it  and  the  evidence 
runs  back  into  apostohc  times.  Even  Renan  declares  that 
it  is  "one  of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament  which  is 
most  anciently  and  most  unanimously  cited  as  authentic."^*^ 
It  is  cited  by  "Second  Peter,"  Polycarp,  Papias,  Hermas, 


1*6  L'Antechrist,  p.  vi. 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  PETER  183 

Basilides,  and  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus.  Irenaeus  is  the  first 
to  call  the  epistle  by  name.  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, and  Origen  quote  from  it  frequently.  Eusebius 
places  it  in  the  first  class  of  the  New  Testament  writings, 
as  freely  acknowledged  by  all.  It  is  in  the  early  versions. 
Strangely  enough,  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Muratorian 
Fragment.  However,  it  may  have  been  omitted  by  mistake, 
as  Salmon  suggests,  or  it  may  have  been  mentioned  in  some 
portion  of  the  Fragment  now  lost.  "There  is  no  book  in 
the  New  Testament  which  has  earlier,  better,  or  stronger 
attestation."i46 

We  are  glad  to  have  an  epistle  from  Peter's  pen.  It  gives 
a  last  view  of  the  apostle  himself  and  it  is  a  most  encour- 
aging view,  for  the  impetuous  and  blundering,  though  lov- 
ing and  loyal,  disciple  of  the  Gospels  has  become  a  ripened 
saint  in  the  epistle.  Jesus  loved  John  more  than  Peter, 
but  in  the  beginning  he  trusted  Peter  more  than  John.  He 
trusted  him  with  the  responsibility  of  founding  the  church  at 
Pentecost  and  of  introducing  the  first  Gentile  into  the  church 
and  of  revealing  to  the  church  the  hope  of  evangelistic  work 
beyond  the  grave.  It  was  honor  enough  for  any  man.  He 
ranks  next  to  Paul  and  John  among  the  letter  writers  of  the 
early  church. 


I,  op.  cit.,  p.  7. 


PART  IV 

THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER' 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER" 

I.  Uncertainty  as  to  Authenticity 

The  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  as  cer- 
tain as  that  of  any  book  in  the  New  Testament.  The  genu- 
ineness of  this  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter"  is  more  uncer- 
tain than  that  of  any  other  book  in  the  New  Testament. 
Of  all  the  books  in  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  "it  is 
the  one  for  which  we  can  produce  the  smallest  amount  of 
external  evidence,  and  which  at  the  same  time  offers  the 
greatest  number  of  internal  difficulties."!  The  First  Epistle 
was  accepted  from  the  beginning  as  the  work  of  the  apostle, 
both  by  the  church  of  the  East  and  the  church  of  the  West. 
If  the  "Second  Epistle"  also  was  the  work  of  the  apostle, 
why  was  it  not  as  immediately  and  as  generally  recognized  ? 
It  is  not  quoted,  and  we  are  not  certain  that  it  is  mentioned 
by  any  writer  in  the  first  or  in  the  second  century. 

The  Peshito  was  the  Bible  of  the  Eastern  church  in  this 
period.  It  was  the  Aramaic  version  of  the  Greek.  It  con- 
tained all  the  books  of  our  New  Testament,  except  "Second 
Peter,"  Second  and  Third  John,  Jude,  and  Revelation.  The 
Itala  was  the  old  Latin  version  of  the  New  Testament  and 
it  was  the  Bible  of  the  Western  church  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  it  contained  all  the  books  of  our  New  Testament, 
except  Hebrews,  James,  and  "Second  Peter."  Put  the 
Peshito  and  the  Itala  together  and  they  testify  that  all  the 
books  in  our  present  canon  were  read  as  Scripture  in  the 
church  of  the  first  two  centuries,  with  the  single  exception 
of  "Second  Peter." 

In  the  churches  of  Syria,  Asia  Minor,  North  Africa,  and 

^  Farrax,  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  p.  1 16. 
187 


i88         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Italy  the  four  Gospels,  the  book  of  Acts,  the  thirteen  epistles 
of  Paul,  one  epistle  of  Peter  and  one  epistle  of  John  were 
accepted  as  canonical  and  these  books  were  unquestioned 
by  any  section  of  the  church.  Twenty  of  our  New  Testa- 
ment books  had  established  themselves  as  of  scriptural  au- 
thority in  the  universal  church.  Six  others  were  accepted 
by  some  and  questioned  by  others.  Of  the  twenty-seven 
books  in  our  New  Testament  only  one  is  missing  in  the 
canon  of  the  first  and  second  centuries.  That  one  is  the 
"Second  Epistle  of  Peter."  It  stands  by  itself,  as  the  last 
to  be  recognized  and  the  one  without  recognition  when  all 
the  other  books  were  accepted,  either  with  or  without  ques- 
tion. 

If  the  epistle  is  genuine,  who  can  give  any  adequate 
explanation  of  this  fact?  If  Peter  wrote  it,  why  was  it  not 
accepted  as  of  apostolic  authority  together  with  the  First 
Epistle  from  his  pen?  Where  was  it  through  the  first  two 
centuries,  since  no  one  quoted  from  it  or  referred  to  it  in  that 
time?  If  it  were  in  existence  and  were  considered  authentic, 
it  would  seem  impossible  that  no  one  would  have  mentioned 
it  in  any  writing  of  the  two  hundred  years.  Those  who  are 
disposed  to  defend  the  genuineness  of  this  epistle^  have 
searched  diligently  through  all  the  early  literature  of  the 
church  for  some  reminiscence  of  the  language  of  "Second 
Peter,"  and  while  they  have  been  able  to  find  some  phrases 
which  seemed  to  suggest  the  phraseology  of  this  epistle,  they 
have  not  been  able  to  show  any  connection  between  them  and 
the  epistle,  and  in  the  lack  of  direct  quotation  and  specific 
mention  it  seems  safer  to  conclude  that  all  these  phrases  are 
from  the  current  religious  vocabulary  of  the  times  and  that 
all  the  authorities  upon  which  we  rely  to  prove  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  other  New  Testament  books  have  wholly  failed 
us  here. 


*  Salmon,  Warfield,  Bigg,  Zahn,  and  others. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        189 

In  brief,  the  history  of  the  epistle  as  to  its  recognition  in 
the  church  is  as  follows:  i.  It  is  ignored  by  Polycarp,  Igna- 
tius, Barnabas,  Clement  of  Rome,  the  Didache,  the  Testa- 
ments of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  Justin,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  Irenoeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Basil,  Chrysostom,  Theodore,  and  Theo- 
doret.  Peter  was  known  personally  in  Syria  and  especially 
in  Antioch,  yet  the  Peshito,  the  Syrian  New  Testament, 
omitted  "Second  Peter,"  and  the  Antiochian  school  of 
exegetes  neither  comment  upon  it  nor  quote  from  it.  There 
are  almost  innumerable  quotations  from  the  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament  in  the  writings  of  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
dore and  Theodoret,  but  not  a  single  reference  to  "Second 
Peter"  occurs  among  them. 

2.  The  epistle  was  regarded  as  of  uncertain  authenticity 
or  was  controverted  or  was  rejected  by  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Didymus  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  and  Eusebius.  No 
reference  to  "Second  Peter"  can  be  found  in  the  extant 
works  of  Clement  of  Alexandria.  He  never  quotes  from  it 
nor  alludes  to  it.  Eusebius  declares,  however,  that  Clement 
commented  upon  this  epistle,  or,  rather,  that  he  commented 
upon  all  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  which  may  and  may  not 
have  included  "Second  Peter."  It  seems  that  Clement 
ranked  "Second  Peter"  with  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  and 
did  not  put  it  on  the  same  level  with  First  Peter  or  the  other 
apostolic  writings.  No  reference  to  "Second  Peter"  can  be 
found  in  the  extant  Greek  works  of  Origen.  Six  such  refer- 
ences can  be  found  in  the  translation  of  Origen's  works  into 
Latin  by  Rufinus ;  but  in  that  translation  it  always  is  doubt- 
ful what  can  be  ascribed  to  Origen  and  what  is  interpolated 
by  Rufinus  himself.  "The  first  absolutely  incontrovertible 
reference  in  Christian  literature  to  'Second  Peter'  is  found 
in  the  words  of  Origen  reported  by  Eusebius,  'And  Peter, 
on  whom  the  Church  of  Christ  is  built,  against  which  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail,  has  left  one  acknowledged 


I90         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

epistle;  perhaps  also  a  second,  but  this  is  doubtful.'  "^ 
Origen,  therefore,  knew  of  the  existence  of  this  epistle,  but 
his  own  judgment  was  unfavorable  to  it. 

Eusebius  discusses  the  authenticity  and  canonicity  of 
"Second  Peter,"  and  he  makes  the  following  statement  con- 
cerning it:  "The  opinion  has  been  handed  down  to  us  that 
the  so-called  Second  Epistle  is  not  canonical,  but  it  has  been 
studied  along  with  the  other  Scriptures,  as  it  appears  profit- 
able to  many."'*  In  another  place  Eusebius  makes  a  canon- 
ical list  and  after  naming  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
which  are  accepted  by  all  he  adds,  "Among  the  disputed 
writings,  which  are  nevertheless  recognized  by  many,"^  are 
five  books  and  among  them  he  names  "the  second  epistle  of 
Peter."  Strachan  says  of  these  statements :  "The  evidence 
of  Eusebius  is  specially  valuable  (i)  because  he  records 
the  opinion  that  in  his  day  Second  Peter  was  regarded  as 
uncanonical;  (2)  because  he  records  a  judgment  of  the  past 
against  it;  (3)  he  failed  to  find  any  recognition  of  the  book 
as  Petrine  in  the  earlier  literature  known  to  him,  and  his 
knowledge  was  wide.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
Eusebius  himself  rejected  the  idea  of  Petrine  authorship, 
but  he  was  also  one  of  those  to  whom  it  was  a  profitable 
book."^    Didymus  declared  flatly  that  the  epistle  was  "false." 

3.  After  quotations  and  references  in  the  writings  of  the 
church  fathers  the  next  most  important  witnesses  to  the 
authenticity  of  our  New  Testament  books  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Versions,  which  in  the  case  of  the  Peshito  and  the 
Itala  go  back  into  the  second  century.  We  already  have 
seen  that  both  of  these  most  ancient  versions  omit  "Second 
Peter"  from  their  canon,  and  their  testimony,  therefore,  is 
wholly  adverse.     The  next  most  important  testimony  is  to 

'Chase,  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,  vol.  iii,  p.  803.  Eusebius, 
Hist.  Eccl.,  vi,  25.  8. 

*  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  iii,  3.  I.  ^  Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  iii,  25.  3. 

'  Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  v,  p.  84. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        191 

be  found  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament  con- 
taining New  Testament  books.  We  turn  to  what  is  our 
oldest  manuscript,  the  Codex  Vaticanus  or  Codex  B,  and  in 
it  we  find  two  divisions  into  sections,  one  older  than  the 
other;  and  the  older  division  is  carried  through  all  of  the 
Catholic  Epistles  with  the  single  exception  of  "Second 
Peter."  Chase  says,  "The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  the 
ancestor  of  Codex  B.  to  which  these  divisions  were  first  at- 
tached, did  not  contain  Second  Peter.'"^ 

4.  The  two  Egyptian  versions,  the  Sahidic  and  the 
Bohairic,  include  "Second  Peter"  with  the  other  Catholic 
Epistles.  The  dates  of  these  versions  are  still  uncertain. 
They  may  belong  to  the  third  century.  Church  councils  at 
Laodicea  and  Hippo  and  Carthage  declared  the  epistle 
canonical.  These  councils  met  late  in  the  fourth  century. 
The  epistle  was  recognized  as  authentic  by  Ambrose  of 
Milan  and  Priscillian  of  Spain  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
fourth  century.  In  this  same  period  it  was  included  in  the 
canonical  list  of  Philastrius  of  Brescia,  as  it  was  twenty-five 
years  later  by  Rufinus.  Jerome  knew  of  the  doubts  con- 
cerning the  epistle,  and  he  said,  "By  many  it  is  denied  to 
be  Peter's  on  account  of  the  differences  in  style  from  the 
first  epistle,"  but  he  went  on  to  say,  "From  this  difference 
in  style  we  judge  that  Peter  made  use  of  different  inter- 
preters." So  Jerome  put  it  into  the  Vulgate,  and  thus  did 
more  than  anyone  else  to  bring  about  its  final  acceptance  in 
the  church.  The  epistle  was  admitted  to  the  Greek  manu- 
scripts in  the  fourth  century,  though  the  Syrian  church 
still  rejected  it.  The  Monophysite  branch  of  the  Syrian 
church  accepted  the  epistle  early  in  the  sixth  century,  but 
the  whole  church  did  not  until  some  time  in  the  Middle 
Ages.  The  epistle  was  accepted  by  Athanasius,  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  Augustine  and  Ephraim. 


Chase,  op.  ciU,  vol.  iii,  p.  804. 


192         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

5.  Doubts  concerning  the  epistle  were  freely  expressed  by 
Erasmus,^  Luther,^  Calvin,  Grotius/^  Scaliger,  and  Sal- 
masius  of  the  Reformation  period.  The  genuineness  of  the 
epistle  has  been  denied  in  part  by  Bertholdt,  Bunsen,  UU- 
mann,  and  Lange.  Hatch,  Sanday,  and  Ramsay  are  inclined 
to  decide  against  it;  and  the  same  thing  might  be  said  of 
Weiss,  Farrar,  Harman,  and  Huther.  The  epistle  has  been 
declared  non-apostolic  by  Baur,  Bleek,  Briickner,  Davidson, 
De  Wette,  Eichhorn,  Godet,  Harnack,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtz- 
mann,  Jiilicher,  Immer,  Jacoby,  Keim,  Mangold,  Mayerhoff, 
Neander,  Pfleiderer,  Pressense,  Renan,  Reuss,  Moffatt,  Ab- 
bott, Chase,  Sabatier,  Schenkel,  Schwegler,  Semler,  Sim- 
cox,  Stevens,  von  Soden  and  many  others.  Its  genuineness 
is  defended  by  Camerlynck,  Dillenseger,  and  Henkel  among 
the  Roman  Catholics  and  by  Alford,  Bigg,  Falconer, 
Guericke,  Hofmann,  Lumby,  Moorehead,  Plummer, 
Plumptre,  Salmon,  Schmidt,  Spitta,  Thiersch,  Warfield, 
Windischmann,  and  Zahn. 

The  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter"  was  the  last  of  the  New 
Testament  books  to  be  received  into  the  New  Testament 
canon.  There  is  no  certain  trace  of  it  anywhere  in  the  first 
and  second  centuries  of  church  history.  There  is  no  evi- 
dence of  its  existence  in  the  Western  church  before  the 
Nicene  Council.  The  church  of  the  fourth  century  put  it 
into  the  canon,  but  the  men  of  that  day  were  in  no  sense 
better  able  to  decide  upon  critical  questions  than  the  scholars 
of  to-day.  In  some  respects  they  were  far  less  so.  The 
criticism  of  that  day  was  very  imperfect  and  undeveloped, 
and  when  we  find  any  individual  scholar  with  the  critical 
faculty  in  that  period  we  find  him  invariably  expressing 

*  Sptirious  or  written  by  Sylvanus  at  Peter's  direction. 

'  2  Pet.  3.  15  indicates  "that  this  epistle  was  written  long  after  those 
of  Paul." 

"  Epistle  written  by  Simeon,  the  second  bishop  of  Jerusalem  in  the 
time  of  Trajan. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        193 

some  doubt  on  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of  this  par- 
ticular epistle. 

The  epistle  bears  on  its  forefront  the  claim  that  it  was 
written  by  the  apostle  Peter  and  the  tardiness  of  its  recog- 
nition by  the  church  leaders  of  the  first,  second,  and  third 
centuries  would  seem  to  be  unfavorable  to  its  genuineness; 
for  if  they  had  believed  that  it  was  what  it  claimed  to  be, 
they  surely  would  have  accepted  it  just  as  readily  and  just 
as  generally  as  they  did  the  First  Epistle.  Chase  concludes : 
"The  absolute  insufficiency  of  external  evidence  creates  a 
presumption  against  its  genuineness,  and  throws  the  whole 
burden  of  proof  on  the  internal  evidence  of  the  epistle  it- 
self."ii  We  turn  then  to  the  epistle  to  see  what  light  it  may 
have  to  throw  upon  the  problem  of  its  authorship,  and  we 
are  surprised  to  find  that  in  almost  every  paragraph  there 
are  startling  phenomena  and  that  both  in  general  and  in 
particular  there  are  marked  differences  between  this  epistle 
and  the  genuine  First  Epistle  of  Peter.  We  notice  these 
differences  next. 

II.  Differences    between    First    Peter    and    "Second 
Peter" 

I.  The  first  and  most  noticeable  difference  is  that  of  style. 
"The  First  Epistle  is  written  in  good,  easy  Greek  with  few 
eccentricities.  It  is  free  from  anything  like  pseudo-classi- 
calism,  is  enriched  with  figures,  and  has  more  quotations 
from  the  Septuagint  woven  into  its  texture  than  most  New 
Testament  books.  In  'Second  Peter'  the  Greek  is  very  curi- 
ous. It  was  evidently  written  by  a  Hebrew,  who  often 
limps  in  his  attempts  at  Greek  style.  Many  of  its  sentences 
are  involved,  its  connections  are  at  times  obscure,  its  use  of 
particles  is  meager,  strange  expressions  are  numerous,  and 
there  is  frequent  repetition  of  phrases  and  words.    Finally, 


"  Chase,  op.  cit.,  p.  807. 


194         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

the  Septuagint  does  not  seem  to  have  been  laid  under  special 
contribution. "12  We  quote  this  judgment  concerning  the 
difference  of  style  from  one  who  is  disposed  to  recognize 
"Second  Peter"  as  a  genuine  product  of  the  pen  of  the 
apostle  Peter  himself,  for  we  feel  sure  that  such  an  one 
would  be  disposed  to  minimize  rather  than  exaggerate  the 
difference  in  style  between  the  two  epistles.  Yet  here  is  a 
thoroughgoing  recognition  of  this  difference. 

The  difference  of  style  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  a  dif- 
ference of  date,  for  if  the  apostle  wrote  both  epistles,  they 
cannot  have  been  separated  from  each  other  by  any  wide 
interval  of  time.  It  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  sugges- 
tion of  different  amanuenses,  for  there  is  no  indication  that 
an  amanuensis  has  had  anything  to  do  with  the  "Second 
Epistle."  It  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  any  radical  differ- 
ence of  theme.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  "Second 
Epistle"  is  a  translation  from  an  Aramaic  original,  but  there 
is  no  evidence  that  this  is  a  fact. 

The  First  Epistle  has  a  smooth  and  flowing  style,  while 
the  "Second  Epistle"  is  rugged,  eccentric,  affected,  full  of 
repetitions  and  tautologies.  The  First  Epistle  "is  simple 
and  natural  and  without  a  trace  of  self-conscious  effort." 
The  "Second  Epistle"  is  "rhetorical  and  labored  and  marked 
by  a  love  of  striking  and  startling  expressions."  Bigg  calls 
the  vocabulary  of  the  First  Epistle  "dignified"  and  that  of 
the  "Second  Epistle"  "grandiose."  The  latter  owes  more 
to  the  dignified  English  of  our  versions  than  any  other  book 
in  the  New  Testament.  The  translation  has  obscured  the 
grotesqueness  of  the  original  kt  many  points  and  its  eccen- 
tricities and  ambiguities  have  disappeared  in  the  process  of 
transference  to  another  tongue.  It  is  the  one  epistle  in  the 
New  Testament  which  reads  better  in  the  English  than  in 
the  Greek. 


"Falconer,  Expositor,  VI,  vi,  p.  47. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        195 

It  is  conceded  by  almost  all  scholars  that  these  two  epistles 
cannot  have  been  written  by  the  same  man,  and  those  who 
hold  to  the  genuineness  of  the  "Second  Epistle,"  like  Spitta 
and  Zahn,  are  practically  obliged  to  give  up  the  Petrine 
authorship  of  the  First  Epistle,  for  they  ascribe  its  com- 
position to  Silvanus,  under  the  direction  of  Peter,  and  thus 
attempt  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  apparent  difference 
of  style.  There  are  other  differences  which  strengthen  the 
impression  of  difference  of  authorship  made  by  the  differ- 
ence of  style. 

2.  We  saw  in  our  study  of  the  First  Epistle  that  there 
were  continuous  reminiscences  of  Peter's  own  experiences 
as  recorded  in  the  Gospels  and  the  book  of  Acts.  His  lan- 
guage recalled  various  crises  in  his  personal  religious  devel- 
opment and  it  seemed  to  us  to  reveal  his  unmistakable  per- 
sonality at  every  turn.  There  were  no  direct  assertions  of 
his  identity  in  connection  with  these  phrases,  but  they  were 
unconscious  and  seemingly  accidental  and  yet  so  numerous 
and  so  minute  that  we  felt  ourselves  face  to  face  with  the 
living  man  and  our  appreciation  of  his  writing  was  doubled 
by  our  knowledge  of  the  self-revelation  so  continuously 
being  made  in  it.  When  we  turn  to  the  "Second  Epistle" 
these  unconscious  reminiscences  utterly  fail  us,  but  the 
author  tells  us  in  direct  statement  who  he  is.  "Simon"  or 
Symeon  "Peter,  a  servant  and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  he 
announces  himself  in  the  first  verse.  "Peter"  of  the  First 
Epistle  has  become  "Symeon  Peter"  here.  "V/e  were  eye- 
witnesses of  his  majesty"  (i.  16).  "This  voice  we  ourselves 
heard  come  out  of  heaven,  when  we  were  with  him  in  the 
holy  mount"  (i.  18).  "This  is  now,  beloved,  the  second  epis- 
tle that  I  write  unto  you"  (3.  i).  Throughout  the  "Second 
Epistle"  we  have  this  bald  assertion  instead  of  the  continu- 
ous unconscious  self-disclosure  of  the  First  Epistle. 

3.  We  naturally  would  expect  one  of  the  twelve  apostles 
in  any  writing  for  which  he  might  be  responsible  to  make 


196         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

frequent  reference  to  the  salient  facts  of  the  gospel  history 
and  doctrines.  In  First  Peter  there  is  ever-recurring  refer- 
ence to  the  incarnation,  the  sufferings  and  death,  the  resur- 
rection and  the  ascension  of  Jesus.  In  the  "Second  Epistle" 
there  is  not  a  single  allusion  to  these  things,  though  the  sub- 
jects handled  in  the  epistle  naturally  would  have  suggested 
them.  First  Peter  is  full  of  reminiscences  of  the  sayings 
of  Jesus.  There  is  only  one  such  reminiscence  in  "Second 
Peter,"  and  that  may  be  the  repetition  of  a  proverbial 
phrase  rather  than  a  quotation  from  the  parable  of  Jesus, 
"the  last  state  is  become  worse  with  them  than  the  first" 
(2.  20). 

Peter  had  seen  the  incarnate  and  the  resurrected  Lord. 
He  had  heard  the  promise  of  the  Paraclete  and  he  had  been 
present  at  Pentecost.  The  First  Epistle  has  much  to  say  of 
prayer  and  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Christian's  personal 
relation  to  Christ.  It  shows  an  appreciation  of  the  funda- 
mental facts  of  the  Christian  faith,  such  as  is  natural  to  one 
who  had  associated  with  Jesus.  In  the  "Second  Epistle" 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  incarnation,  crucifixion,  or  resur- 
rection. There  is  nothing  on  the  subject  of  prayer  or  of  the 
Pentecostal  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  there  is  no  vivid  sense  of 
the  aid  to  be  received  from  the  ascended  Lord.  There  is  a 
strange  lack  of  the  themes  we  consider  most  characteristic 
of  Christianity.  At  this  point,  again,  the  two  epistles  con- 
trast most  strikingly. 

4.  The  phraseology  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  books 
clearly  influences  the  phraseology  of  First  Peter,  but  the 
author  of  the  "Second  Epistle"  does  not  show  any  such 
familiarity  with  these  books.  In  their  tables  of  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament  found  in  the  New  Testament  West- 
cott  and  Hort  list  thirty-one  quotations  in  First  Peter  and 
only  five  in  "Second  Peter,"  and  these  five  are  all  open  to 
question.  The  thought  of  the  First  Epistle  is  colored  con- 
tinuously by  the  language  of  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  and  Psalms, 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        197 

as  well  as  by  the  thought  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Epistle  of  James.  The  "Second 
Epistle"  does  not  have  more  than  a  single  allusion  to  any 
or  all  of  these,  and  it  never  quotes  any  Old  Testament  book 
formally,  and  possibly  it  never  quotes  at  all. 

5.  Another  peculiar  difference  is  found  in  the  names  ap- 
plied to  Jesus  in  the  two  epistles.  In  the  First  Epistle  we 
find  the  names  "Christ,"  "the  Christ,"  or  "Jesus  Christ." 
In  the  "Second  Epistle"  the  names  are  "our  Lord"  or  "The 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  Saviour."  The  word  "Saviour" 
is  not  to  be  found  in  First  Peter,  but  it  occurs  five  times 
in  the  "Second  Epistle"  and  becomes  characteristic  of  its 
use.  Everywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  the  word 
"Saviour"  stands  in  a  predicate  relation,  as  a  term  descrip- 
tive of  the  work  of  Christ.  In  this  "Second  Epistle"  alone 
it  seems  to  be  a  title  or  proper  name. 

6.  Another  difference  between  the  epistles  is  observable 
in  the  terms  they  use  for  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord. 
In  First  Peter  it  is  called  the  apocalypse,  and  in  the  "Second 
Epistle"  it  is  the  parousia,  or  the  day  of  the  Lord.  In  First 
Peter  it  is  near  at  hand,  while  in  the  "Second  Epistle"  it  is 
relegated  to  the  indefinite  future.  In  First  Peter  it  is  the 
time  of  the  glorification  of  the  saints,  while  in  the  "Second 
Epistle"  it  is  represented  as  the  time  of  the  destruction  of 
the  world.  There  was  a  general  expectation  of  the  immedi- 
ate coming  of  Christ  through  all  the  apostolic  age.  If  the 
"Second  Epistle"  had  been  written  by  Peter,  this  postpone- 
ment of  the  expectation  of  the  second  advent  would  be  very 
strange  indeed.  Christians  looked  for  the  immediate  com- 
ing of  Christ  up  to  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr. 

7.  The  tone  of  the  two  letters  is  markedly  different.  The 
First  Epistle  is  apostolic,  pastoral,  fatherly,  dignified,  gentle  ; 
the  "Second  Epistle"  is  prophetic,  denunciatory,  severe. 
The  First  Epistle  is  full  of  the  calm  assurance  of  faith;  the 
"Second  Epistle"  is  full  of  anxiety  and  foreboding. 


198         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

8.  The  keynotes  of  the  two  epistles  are  different.  In  the 
First  the  chief  emphasis  is  laid  upon  hope;  in  the  "Second" 
it  is  laid  upon  knowledge. 

9.  There  is  a  different  relation  between  the  author  and 
the  readers  assumed  in  the  two  epistles.  In  the  First  Epistle 
Peter  addresses  a  definite  circle  of  churches  and  he  tells 
us  where  he  is  when  he  writes.  The  address  in  the  "Second 
Epistle"  is  of  the  most  indefinite  sort,  "to  them  who  have 
obtained  a  like  precious  faith  with  us,"  and  there  are  no 
geographical  data  suggested  anywhere  in  the  epistle.  In 
the  First  Epistle  Peter  writes  as  to  strangers,  but  in  the 
"Second  Epistle"  the  author  assumes  a  longstanding  ac- 
quaintance with  his  readers  and  intimates  that  this  acquaint- 
ance is  to  be  maintained  by  means  of  continued  correspond- 
ence until  his  death. 

The  difference  in  style  is  acknowledged  by  all.  It  sug- 
gests a  difference  of  authorship.  Then,  when  we  find  that 
the  author  of  the  First  Epistle  says  little  or  nothing  about 
his  personal  relation  to  Jesus  while  his  language  and  thought 
are  filled  with  reminiscences  of  the  incidents  in  which  Peter 
figured  in  the  Gospels  and  the  book  of  Acts,  while  the 
author  of  the  "Second  Epistle"  calls  attention  again  and 
again  to  the  things  he  himself  had  seen  and  heard  in  the 
company  of  Jesus,  and  this  conscious  asseveration  takes  the 
place  of  the  unconscious  reminiscence  of  the  First  Epistle; 
when  we  find  a  marked  difference  in  their  familiarity  with 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  their  quotation  from  it ;  when  the 
religious  atmosphere  and  the  emphasis  upon  the  funda- 
mentals of  the  faith  clearly  distinguish  the  one  from  the 
other;  when  we  find  in  them  different  titles  for  Jesus,  and 
different  terms  for  the  second  advent,  different  conceptions 
of  this  event,  different  keynotes,  and  different  relations  as- 
sumed between  the  author  and  the  readers,  the  suggestion 
of  a  difference  of  authorship  made  by  the  difference  of  style 
seems  to  be  substantiated  by  all  the  other  internal  phenom- 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        199 

ena  and  what  was  a  suspicion  at  first  ripens  into  an  almost 
assured  certainty  as  our  study  progresses. 

We  are  not  surprised  to  find  a  modern  commentator  con- 
cluding: "Unless  we  are  prepared  to  abandon  the  author- 
ship of  First  Peter,  we  cannot  claim  it  for  'Second  Peter.' 
Not  only  is  the  tone  different,  but  the  expression.  What  is 
more  unlikely  than  that  the  same  writer  of  two  letters,  near 
in  time,  would  use  a  phrase  to  describe  Christianity  repeat- 
edly in  one  and  never  in  the  other?  That  is  the  case  here: 
in  'Second  Peter'  'the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ' 
is  almost  invariably  used;  in  First  Peter  never.  Then  as 
regards  the  doctrine  of  the  two  epistles,  whereas  in  First 
Peter  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord  are  re- 
peatedly named,  and  form  the  center  of  the  gospel,  in 
'Second  Peter'  neither  is  mentioned  or  alluded  to,  and  in- 
stead, the  transfiguration  is  named.  Lastly,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  trace  any  substantial  resemblance  between  the 
teaching  of  'Second  Peter'  and  the  Petrine  sermons  in  the 
Acts."^3  We  turn  next  to  an  inquiry  into  the  literary  de- 
pendencies of  the  "Second  Epistle." 

IIL  Dependence  upon  the  Epistle  of  Jude 

The  parallels  between  the  second  chapter  of  the  "Second 
Epistle"  and  the  short  epistle  of  Jude  are  so  many  and  so 
close  that  all  the  critics  are  sure  that  one  has  borrowed  from 
the  other.  They  are  not  so  unanimous  in  their  decision 
as  to  which  is  the  borrower.  Bigg  says :  "When  two  writers, 
whose  date  cannot  be  precisely  ascertained,  are  clearly  in 
the  position  of  borrower  and  lender,  the  question  of  priority 
must  turn  to  a  great  degree  on  points  of  style,  and  these 
will  always  strike  different  minds  in  different  ways.  If  the 
arrangement  of  the  one  writer  is  more  logical,  and  his  ex- 
pression clearer,  than  those  of  the  other,  it  may  be  thought 

^'  A.  F.  Mitchell,  Hebrews  and  Catholic  Epistles,  p.  65. 


200         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

either  that  the  first  has  improved  upon  the  second,  or  that 
the  second  has  spoiled  the  first.  The  criterion  is  of  neces- 
sity highly  subjective,  and  no  very  positive  result  will  be 
attained  unless  we  can  show  that  the  one  has  misunderstood 
the  other,  that  the  one  uses  words  which  are  not  only  not 
used  by  the  other,  but  belong  to  a  different  school  of  thought, 
or  that  the  one  has  definitely  quoted  the  other.''^^  Upon  the 
basis  of  these  criteria  the  great  majority  of  the  critics  are 
convinced  of  the  priority  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude.  This 
means,  of  course,  that  "Second  Peter"  has  borrowed  from 
Jude. 

I.  The  differing  authorities.  Luther,  always  independent 
in  judgment  and  emphatic  in  assertion,  declared  that  no  one 
could  deny  the  priority  of  "Second  Peter."  Other  good 
authorities  have  agreed  with  him  here,  such  as  Bengel, 
Benson,  Bigg,  Dietlein,  Fronmiiller,  Grotius,  Hofmann, 
Hengstenberg,  Lange,  Lumby,  Mansel,  Michaelis,  Mill, 
Plummer,  Schaff,  Semler,  Spitta,  Stier,  Thiersch,  Wetstein, 
Wolf,  Wordsworth,  and  Zahn.  On  the  other  hand,  Abbott, 
Alford,  Angus,  Bleek,  Briickner,  Chase,  Credner,  Davidson, 
De  Wette,  Ewald,  Eichhorn,  Farrar,  Guericke,  Harnack, 
Hatch,  Herder,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann,  Hug,  Huther, 
Jiilicher,  Mayerhoff,  Mayor,  Maier,  Moffatt,  Neander, 
Plumptre,  Peake,  Reuss,  Salmon,  Schenkel,  Sieffert,  Weiss, 
Wiesinger,  and  others  hold  to  the  priority  of  Jude.  Weiss 
declares  there  can  be  no  question  in  the  matter.  Far- 
rar asserts,  "After  careful  consideration  and  comparison 
of  the  two  documents  it  seems  to  my  own  mind  impossible 
to  doubt  that  Jude  was  the  earlier  of  the  two  writers. "^^ 
Holtzmann  says  that  at  the  present  day  the  hypothesis  of 
the  priority  of  "Second  Peter"  is  practically  abandoned. 
Mayor  sums  up  a  long  discussion  of  the  subject  with  the 
statement,  "The  impression  which  the  epistles  leave  on  my 

"  Bigg,  Commentary,  p.  216. 

"  Farrar,  The  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  vol.  i,  p.  196. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        201 

mind  is  that  in  Jude  we  have  the  first  thought,  in  'Second 
Peter'  the  second  thought;  that  we  can  generally  see  a 
reason  why  'Peter'  should  have  altered  Jude,  but  very  rarely 
a  reason  why  what  we  read  in  'Peter'  should  have  been 
altered  to  what  we  find  in  Jude.  'Peter'  is  more  reflective. 
Jude  more  spontaneous."^^ 

2.  Some  of  the  reasons  adduced  for  this  conclusion  are 
as  follows:  (i)  "The  impious  persons  of  Jude  and  the 
false  teachers  of  'Second  Peter'  are  described  by  the  same 
characteristics,  pictured  by  the  same  metaphors,  compared 
with  the  same  Old  Testament  offenders,  warned  by  the 
same  examples,  and  threatened  with  the  same  retribution; 
but  the  writer  of  'Second  Peter'  is  less  impetuous  than 
Jude,  more  elaborate  and  restrained.  He  omits  some  things 
and  modifies  and  softens  the  language  of  Jude  in  certain 
places.  He  prefers  not  to  touch  upon  some  rather  dubious 
matters,  such  as  the  lust  of  the  angels  and  the  dispute  of 
Michael  and  Satan  over  the  body  of  Moses.  He  also  omits 
Jude's  double  allusion  to  a  particular  form  of  levitical  pol- 
lution. He  sets  aside  Jude's  quotations  from  the  Book  of 
Enoch  and  the  Assumption  of  Moses  and  he  gives  an  in- 
genious turn  to  the  latter  quotation  which  suggests  a  scene 
in  the  Book  of  Zechariah.''^^ 

(2)  Some  of  the  passages  in  "Second  Peter"  are  scarcely 
intelligible  until  we  turn  to  Jude  for  the  explanation  of  them. 
"Second  Peter"  has  so  modified  Jude  as  to  leave  the  mean- 
ing obscure.  The  words  are  paralleled,  but  the  thought  is 
different  and  inferior.  Their  original  force  seems  to  have 
evaporated  in  transition. 

(3)  In  some  cases  the  sound  of  the  words  is  reproduced, 
but  not  the  words  themselves.  Weiss  declares  that  the 
"clang"  of  the  words  is  maintained  without  their  meaning. 
It  is  as  if  "Second  Peter"  were  repeating  words  heard  long 

'« Expositor's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  v,  p.  225. 
Farrar,  Messages  of  the  Books,  pp.  466,  467. 


202        THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

before  or  from  a  distance  so  that  they  had  not  been  clearly 
caught  by  the  ear.  Where  Jude  has  amXddeg,  sunken  reefs, 
"Second  Peter"  has  arrlXoi,  spots.  Where  Jude  has  dydnaig, 
love  feasts,  "Second  Peter"  has  dndTaig,  deceits.  Where 
Jude  has  oeipal^,  chains  of  darkness,  "Second  Peter"  has 
oeipolg,  pits  of  darkness.  In  one  place  "Second  Peter"  has 
improved  the  bold  figure  of  Jude  into  more  pedantic  ac- 
curacy, and  Jude's  ve^iXat  dvvdpoi,  clouds  without  water, 
has  become  TTTjyai  dwSpoi,  fountains  without  water. 

(4)  Speaking  generally  it  seems  more  probable  that  a 
later  writer  would  appropriate  the  chief  portion  of  a  brief 
letter  and  add  much  to  it  than  that  he  would  appropriate 
the  middle  portion  of  a  longer  letter  and  add  little  or  noth- 
ing to  it. 

(5)  Jude  is  original.  "Second  Peter"  is  comparatively 
confused  and  rhetorical.  Jude  has  the  first  thought  and 
"Second  Peter"  the  second  thought.  One  can  understand 
how  a  later  writer  could  work  over  the  vehement  and  spon- 
taneous style  of  Jude  into  something  more  softened  and 
restrained,  but  it  would  be  difficult  to  show  any  good  reason 
why  Jude,  if  he  wished  to  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the 
apostle  Peter,  should  not  quote  his  description  of  these 
errorists  under  the  apostle  Peter's  name ;  and  that  he  should 
appropriate  the  apostle's  denunciation  and  publish  it  under 
his  own  name  is  unthinkable.^^ 

The  conclusion  that  "Second  Peter"  was  borrowing  from 
Jude  in  this  second  chapter  would  be  strengthened  some- 
what if  we  found  that  it  borrowed  from  other  and  later 
sources.  Dr.  Edwin  A.  Abbott  is  sure  that  this  can  be 
shown. 

IV.  Dependence  upon  Josephus 

In  an  article  in  the  Expositor^^  Dr.  Abbott  pointed  out  a 
series  of  parallels  between  "Second  Peter"  and  the  Antiqui- 

^  Haupt,  Studien  und  Kritiken,  1904,  p.  149. 
"  Second  Series,  vol.  iii,  p.  49. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"       203 

ties  of  Josephus,  "such  as  occur  in  no  other  book  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  such  as  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  on  the 
supposition  that  one  of  the  two  writers  had  seen  the  work 
of  the  other."  It  does  not  seem  Hkely  that  Josephus  would 
quote  from  this  one  epistle  in  the  New  Testament  and  show 
no  trace  in  all  his  writings  of  any  influence  from  any  other 
book  coming  from  a  Christian  or  apostolic  source.  If 
Josephus  did  not  quote  from  the  epistle,  then  the  epistle  has 
quoted  from  Josephus,  for  the  parallels  prove  that  they 
cannot  be  independent  of  each  other.  If  the  epistle  quotes 
from  Josephus,  it  cannot  have  been  written  by  Peter,  for 
the  Antiquities  of  Josephus  did  not  appear  earlier  than 
A.  D.  93,  long  after  the  apostle  Peter  was  dead.  Moffatt 
decides:  "A  number  of  the  coincidences  of  language  and 
style  occur  not  only  in  the  compass  of  two  short  paragraphs 
of  Josephus,  but  in  a  sequence  and  connection  which  is  not 
dissimilar;  and,  even  after  allowance  is  made  for  the  wide- 
spread use  of  rhetorical  commonplaces,  these  coincidences 
can  hardly  be  dismissed  as  fortuitous.  Their  weight  tells 
in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  that  the  author  of  'Second 
Peter'  was  famihar  with  Josephus."2o  The  reasonableness 
of  this  conclusion  becomes  apparent  as  we  look  at  the  facts. 
In  the  introduction  to  the  Antiquities,  Josephus  says  that 
Moses  considered  that  the  basis  of  all  law  was  insight  into 
the  nature  of  God,  Qsov  ^vaiv,  that  he  exhibited  God  in 
the  possession  of  his  virtue,  dperriv,  that  the  laws  of  Moses 
contain  nothing  out  of  harmony  with  the  greatness, 
fieyaXeiOTrjTog,  of  God,  that  he  kept  free  from  myths  and 
legends,  though  he  might  have  easily  cheated  men 
with  feigned  stories,  TrXaofidTcov,  for  he  did  not  do  as 
other  lawgivers  who  have  followed  after  fables,  fivdoi^ 
k^aKokovdrjoavreg.  Compare  with  this  passage  the  statements 
found  in  "Second  Peter,"  "him  that  called  us  by  his  own 


»  Mofifatt,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  29. 


204        THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

glory  and  virtue,  aperrig,  21  t^^t  ye  may  become  partakers 
of  the  divine  nature,  Oelag  (pvoeojg.^^  For  we  did  not  follow 
cunningly  devised  fables,  iJ.v6ocg  k^atcoXoveTJaavreg,  but  we 
were  eyewitnesses  of  his  majesty,  fxeyaXetoTTjTog.^^  Others 
make  merchandise  of  you  with  feigned  words,  nXaoTocg 
Xoyoig."^^ 

The  word  in  the  Greek  for  "following  after"  is  not  found 
anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.  The  word  for 
"fables"  is  found  four  times  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  but 
not  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  and  neither  the  New 
Testament  nor  the  Septuagint  has  the  words  "having  fol- 
lowed after  fables"  combined  in  the  same  way  as  Josephus 
and  this  epistle  have  them.  The  phrase  "the  nature  of  God" 
is  not  found  in  either  the  New  Testament  nor  the  Septua- 
gint, and  the  expression  is  altogether  aUen  to  New  Testa- 
ment thought.  The  Greeks  might  talk  about  the  nature  of 
their  gods,  but  no  Christian  and  no  Jew  was  likely  to  talk 
about  the  "nature"  of  his  God.  To  them  God  was  a  Spirit, 
and  nature  stood  in  contrast  to  spirit  in  their  thought.  The 
word  for  "feigned"  is  not  found  in  the  New  Testament  nor 
in  the  Septuagint. 

The  word  "virtue"  is  found  only  in  Phil.  4.  8  and  in  this 
passage  in  "Second  Peter"  in  the  New  Testament.  The  ideal 
of  the  New  Testament  is  holiness  rather  than  virtue.  "It  is 
so  astonishing  to  find  virtue — the  cold,  human,  lower  ideal 
of  virtue,  as  distinct  from  righteousness  and  holiness — as- 
cribed to  God,  that  the  strangeness  of  the  phrase  actually 
frightened  the  translators  of  the  Authorized  Version  into 
the  impossible  translation,  or,  rather,  mistranslation,  'who 
hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue,'  instead  of  'by  his  own 
glory  and  virtue.'  "^s  The  Revised  Versions  have  corrected 
it.  The  old  reading  was  found  in  Codex  Vaticanus,  prob- 
ably altered  from  the  original;  but  the  correct  reading  was 

"  I.  3.  22 1.  4.  M  I,  16.  24  2.  3. 

^  Farrar,  op.  cit.,  p.  469. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        205 

retained  in  Codex  Sinaiticus,  Codex  Alexandrinus,  and 
Codex  Ephraimi  Rescriptus.  It  was  natural  enough  for 
Josephus  to  use  the  word  "virtue"  as  he  did,  for  he  was  con- 
trasting the  virtue  of  God  with  the  viciousness  ascribed  to 
and  acknowledged  in  the  heathen  deities.  From  Josephiis 
it  seems  to  have  passed  over  into  this  epistle. 

The  indebtedness  between  the  two  is  found  in  the  use  of 
identical  words  not  found  in  either  the  New  Testament  nor 
the  Septuagint,  in  the  grouping  of  these  words  in  close  juxta- 
position, and  in  the  occurrence  among  them  of  some  very 
peculiar  conceptions.  In  a  single  passage  in  Josephus  we 
find  mention  made  of  the  power,  the  virtue,  the  nature,  and 
the  greatness  of  God,  and  a  protest  against  the  use  of  feigned 
words  and  the  following  after  fables.  The  same  words, 
phrases,  and  conceptions  are  found  in  a  single  passage  in 
"Second  Peter"  and  they  are  not  to  be  found  anywhere  else 
in  the  New  Testam.ent. 

Compare  again  the  passage  in  which  Josephus  records  the 
last  utterance  of  Moses  with  what  purport  to  be  the  last 
words  of  Peter  in  this  epistle.^^  Both  look  forward  to  the 
time  of  their  departure,  and  both  use  the  rather  rare  and  pe- 
culiar word  for  it,  e^o6og.  Both  think  it  is  right,  StKaiov 
•qyovuai,  to  warn  by  the  present,  Trapovoxi,  truth.  In  other 
passages  both  Josephus  and  this  epistle  supplement  the  Bible 
narrative  with  certain  statements  in  which  they  agree.  They 
tell  us  that  Noah  was  a  "herald  of  righteousness"  and  that 
Baalam  was  "rebuked  by  the  ass"  rather  than  by  the  angel, 
as  in  the  Pentateuch  narrative.  These  would  seem  to  be 
indications  that  the  author  of  this  epistle  was  familiar  with 
the  Antiquities  of  Josephus,  and  that  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously he  was  indebted  to  this  book  for  some  of  his  words, 
phrases,  and  conceptions.  As  he  had  copied  from  Jude  he 
also  copies  from  Josephus.  Indeed,  he  seems  to  be  rather 
prone  to  copy  from  others. 

2«  Antiquities,  iv,  8,  2,  and  2  Pet.  i.  12-15. 


2o6        THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

V.  Dependence  upon  Philo 

Philo^^  in  commenting  upon  Gen.  15.  12,  "But  about  sun- 
set a  trance  fell  upon  Abraham,"  declares  that  this  describes 
the  experience  of  one  who  is  inspired  or  borne  on  by  God, 
6eo<poprjrov,  for  a  prophet  uttereth  nothing  that  is  his  own 
or  private,  Idiov.  Human  reason  must  be  dormant  when 
the  Divine  Spirit  inspires.  Both  the  reason  and  the  sun  are 
light-bearers,  if)ua^opel;  and  it  is  only  when  the  sun  sets, 
only  when  the  human  reason  is  dormant,  that  the  Divine 
light  rises,  dvariXXei.  Compare  with  this  passage  "Second 
Peter"  i.  19-21,  in  which  the  author  exhorts  his  readers  to 
give  heed  to  prophecy  until  the  Light-bearer,  ^o)a<p6pog, 
may  rise,  avareiXxi,  in  their  hearts;  knowing  this  first,  that 
no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  private,  Wio?,  interpretation. 
For  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man:  but  men 
spake  from  God,  being  borne  on,  (pep6[j,£voi,  by  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Here  "Peter"  must  be  interpreted  by  Philo.  Philo  de- 
clares that  the  prophet  originates  nothing  of  himself  and 
therefore  utters  nothing  of  his  own  or  private  significance. 
"Peter"  adds  that  the  prophet  neither  originates  nor  inter- 
prets privately  or  of  himself.  The  word  "light-bearer"  is 
not  found  anywhere  else  in  the  New  Testament  or  in  the 
Septuagint.  Neither  is  the  phrase  "being  borne  on,"  as 
applied  to  men,  found  in  these  sources.  Yet  here  are  all  of 
these  unique  conceptions  found  in  a  single  paragraph  in 
Philo  and  reproduced  in  "Second  Peter."  If  the  author  of 
this  epistle  copied  from  Jude  and  Josephus  and  Philo,  it 
may  be  that  we  will  find  him  reproducing  still  other  sources 
of  his  inspiration. 

VI.  Dependence  upon   Clement  of  Rome 
In  "Second  Peter"  i.  17  we  read  that  on  the  mount  of 


Quis  Rer.  Divin.  Her.,  p.  52. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        207 

transfiguration  witness  was  borne  to  Jesus  by  a  voice  from 
the  Majestic  Glory,  vrrd  r^f  fieyaXongeTT^g  do^rj^.  It  is  a 
peculiar  phrase,  not  to  be  found  anywhere  else  in  the  New 
Testament;  but  the  exact  words  are  found  in  the  Epistle  of 
Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians,  chapter  9,  "those  that 
ministered  to  his  excellent  glory,"  ry  fityaXo-nge-neL  66^y, 
In  "Second  Peter"  3. 5-7,  treating  of  God's  promises, 
knayyeXlag,  the  author  says  that  the  heavens  from  of  old  and 
the  earth  were  compacted  by  the  word  of  God,  but  the 
heavens  that  now  are,  and  the  earth,  by  the  same  word  have 
been  stored  up  for  fire.  In  a  similar  passage,  Clement,  chap- 
ter 2y,  bids  us  attach  ourselves  to  Him  who  is  faithful  to 
his  promises,  e-nayyeXiac,  for  "in  the  word  of  his  power  he 
compacted  all  things  and  in  the  word  he  is  able  to  destroy 
them."    Which  of  the  two  is  borrowing? 

Clement  wrote  about  A.  D.  95 ;  Josephus  wrote  not  earlier 
than  A.  D.  93.  If,  as  we  thought,  this  epistle  quotes  from 
Josephus,  then  it  must  have  just  come  into  existence  if 
Clement  read  it  and  quoted  from  it.  No  other  Christian 
writer  quotes  from  this  epistle  until  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  It  does  not  seem  likely  that  Clement  would  have 
done  so,  if  the  epistle  never  had  been  heard  of  until  a  year 
or  so  before  his  own  writing.  If  the  epistle  is  quoting  from 
Clement,  as  would  seem  more  probable,  then  it  must  have 
been  written  after  the  date  of  Clement's  epistle  and  long 
after  the  death  of  Peter.  In  the  single  passage,  i.  19-21,  we 
find  direct  parallels  to  Josephus,  Philo,  and  also  the  Fourth 
Book  of  Esdras,  for  in  Esdras  12.  42  we  find  the  phrase, 
"a  lamp  shining  in  a  squalid  place."  It  would  seem  to  be 
the  character  of  this  epistle  to  borrow  from  other  writers. 
We  can  trace  its  thoughts  back  in  this  way  to  Jude,  Josephus, 
Philo,  Clement  of  Rome,  and  the  Apocrypha. 

VII.  Dependence  upon  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter 
The  Apocalypse  of  Peter  is  one  of  the  books  which  most 


2o8        THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

nearly  achieved  a  place  in  the  New  Testament  canon.  Some 
writers  knew  it  and  valued  it  highly,  while  they  seem  never 
to  have  heard  of  the  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter."  Its  descrip- 
tions of  heaven  and  hell  influenced  Perpetua  and  Methodius 
and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  and  Ephraem  Syrus  and  Dante  and 
Milton,  and  through  these  much  of  the  thought  of  the 
modern  world.  It  is  the  ultimate  source  of  the  beUef  that 
each  sin  receives  its  corresponding  and  appropriate  punish- 
ment in  some  special  province  of  hell.  It  is  about  the  length 
ofthe  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  It  claims  to  be  a  revelation 
made  by  Jesus  while  sitting  upon  the  Mount  of  Olives  and 
surrounded  by  the  apostles,  for  whom  Peter  speaks.  It  was 
read  and  reverenced  by  many  Christians  in  Rome  and  in 
Africa  and  in  the  East. 

The  Muratorian  Fragment  said,  "The  Apocalypses  of 
John  and  Peter  only  do  we  receive,  which  latter  some  among 
us  would  not  have  read  in  the  church."  Eusebius  tells  us  that 
Clement  of  Alexandria  gave  abridged  accounts  of  all  the 
canonical  books  and  also  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter.  Eusebius  brands  the  latter  book  as 
spurious,  even  as  many  declared  the  Apocalypse  of  John  to 
be.  However,  Methodius  called  it  "divinely  inspired  Scrip- 
ture," and  Sozomen,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  in- 
forms us  that  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  was  read  on  Good 
Friday  of  each  year  in  certain  churches  of  Palestine  "up  to 
the  present  day." 

The  Apocalypse  of  Peter  was  written  before  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  and  it  became  quite  popular  and  en- 
joyed a  wide  circulation  through  the  church.  At  one  time 
it  bade  fair  to  be  declared  canonical,  but  ultimately  it  was 
rejected  and  then  was  lost  to  the  knowledge  of  the  later 
days.  In  1886  a  fragment  of  this  lost  Apocalypse  was  dis- 
covered in  an  ancient  burying  place  in  Akhmim  in  Upper 
Egypt.  It  is  in  the  original  Greek  and  is  now  in  the  Gizeh 
museum.    It  was  published  in  1892.    In  1910  a  translation 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        209 

of  the  complete  Apocalypse  was  published  in  France.  The 
translation  was  made  from  an  Ethiopic  manuscript  found  in 
the  remarkable  Ethiopic  library  of  D'Abbadie  at  Paris, 
whose  treasures  had  been  brought  to  Europe  after  the 
Abyssinian  war  of  1868.  It  was  seen  at  once  that  here  we 
had  a  document  very  much  like  our  "Second  Epistle  of 
Peter."  The  two  writings  are  alike  in  style,  phraseology, 
and  thought.  They  evidently  belong  to  the  same  author 
or  to  the  same  school.  Salmon  says  that  the  agreements 
between  the  two  manuscripts  "are  more  than  accidental. "^s 
Sanday  concludes  that  the  resemblances  are  so  marked  as  to 
prove  that  the  two  writings  are  nearly  connected.^^  Har- 
nack  and  Jiilicher  think  that  "Second  Peter"  quotes  from 
the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.^o  Kiihl  thinks  that  the  second  chap- 
ter of  the  epistle  was  written  by  the  same  hand  that  wrote 
the  Apocalypse. 

We  have  seen  that  we  have  no  evidence  that  the  "Second 
Epistle  of  Peter"  was  admitted  to  the  Bible  of  either  the 
Eastern  or  the  Western  church  in  either  the  first  or  the 
second  century.  For  more  than  two  hundred  years  the 
Christians  did  not  seem  to  consider  it  canonical.  All  the 
other  books  of  our  New  Testament  were  recognized  within 
this  period.  "Second  Peter"  alone  was  left  out.  We  have 
seen  how  this  epistle  differs  in  style  from  that  of  the  genu- 
ine Epistle  of  Peter  and  how  many  other  indications  there 
are  of  different  authorship  in  the  different  terms  and  titles 
and  conceptions  and  emphases,  in  the  keynotes  and  relations 
and  general  atmosphere  of  the  two  productions.  We  have 
noticed  the  manifest  tendency  in  "Second  Peter"  to  conscious 
or  unconscious  quotation  and  its  seeming  dependence  upon 
Philo  and  Paul  and  Jude  and  Josephus  and  Esdras  and 
Clement  of  Rome  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter. 

»  Salmon,  Introduction,  p.  591. 
"  Sanday,  Inspiration,  p.  347. 
"Hamack,  Chronologie,  p.  471. 


2IO         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

The  universal  rejection  of  this  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter" 
in  contrast  with  the  universal  reception  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  as  a-genuine  product  of  the  apostle's  pen,  the  mani- 
fest differences  between  the  two  in  tone  and  style  and  con- 
tent, the  dependence  of  "Second  Peter"  upon  not  only  earlier 
but  also  some  of  the  later  books,  would  all  point  to  the  con- 
clusion that  "Second  Peter"  must  have  come  into  existence 
long  after  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  was  written,  and  pos- 
sibly not  until  the  first  Christian  century  had  passed.  There 
are  other  indications  in  the  epistle  of  a  late  origin  which  we 
notice  in  addition  to  those  we  have  mentioned. 

VIII.  Other  Indications  of  Late  Origin 

I.  We  are  inclined  to  rank  first  among  these  the  author's 
overanxiety  to  identify  himself  with  the  apostle  Peter.  He 
sets  up  a  claim  to  apostolic  authority  and  tries  to  make  it 
good  by  repeated  assertion.  Weakest  in  attestation,  this 
epistle  is  loudest  in  protestation.  It  lays  itself  liable  to  the 
suspicion  that  it  protests  too  much.  It  shares  this  charac- 
teristic with  the  Gospel  according  to  Peter,  an  apocryphal 
Gospel  written  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century,  a 
fragment  of  which  has  been  discovered  in  a  Christian  grave 
at  Akhmim  in  Egypt  after  lying  there  undisturbed  for  a 
thousand  years.  There  was  a  somewhat  extensive  literature 
in  the  early  church,  falsely  ascribed  to  Peter.  Serapion,  at 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  found  the  Gospel  according 
to  Peter  in  use  in  Rhossus  in  Cilicia,  and  he  allowed  it  for 
some  time,  as  the  book  seemed  to  him  to  be  on  the  whole 
orthodox,  although  he  pronounced  it  to  be  unauthentic.  He 
says,  "We  receive  both  Peter  and  the  other  apostles  as 
Christ;  but  as  experienced  men  we  reject  the  writings 
falsely  ascribed  with  their  names,  since  we  know  that  we 
did  not  receive  such  from  our  fathers."^^ 


Eusebius,  op.  cit.,  vi,  12.  3. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        211 

The  Gospel  according  to  Peter  is  filled  with  direct  asser- 
tions of  apostolic  authority,  and  it  was  published  under  the 
name  of  Peter,  but  Serapion  rightly  rejected  it  because  it 
had  no  attestation  from  antiquity.  If  he  had  found  the 
"Second  Epistle  of  Peter"  in  use  in  his  diocese,  he  undoubt- 
edly would  have  rejected  it  for  the  same  reason.  Direct 
claims  prove  nothing,  unless  they  have  the  backing  of  the 
facts.  The  facts  both  of  external  and  internal  attestation 
wholly  fail  us  in  the  case  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Peter 
and  in  the  case  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  Do  they  not 
fail  us  just  as  completely  in  the  case  of  this  "Second  Epistle 
of  Peter"?  With  no  backing  of  patristic  testimony  there 
is  no  lacking  of  persistent  asseveracion.  There  had  been  no 
need  of  this  in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  Its  unconscious 
allusions  proved  its  authenticity  on  every  page.  On  every 
page  of  the  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter"  we  find  something 
to  suggest  a  question  or  suspicion  of  the  authorship  so 
stoutly  affirmed  at  every  point.  Over  against  these  direct 
claims  we  array  the  testimony  of  the  epistle  itself. 

2.  Would  Peter  have  spoken  about  the  parousia  in  the 
terms  used  in  this  epistle  ?  At  the  time  of  its  writing  there 
seems  to  be  widespread  doubt  concerning  the  immediate 
coming  of  the  Lord,  and  there  are  many  who  mock  at  its 
delay.  Was  that  ever  true  in  the  days  of  Peter?  Does  it 
not  suggest  a  much  later  date? 

3.  At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter 
a  fiery  persecution  was  trying  the  fortitude  of  the  church 
and  the  apostle  exhorts  to  patient  endurance  of  these  out- 
ward trials.  At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  the  "Second 
Epistle"  the  situation  seems  changed.  The  danger  is  no 
longer  from  without,  but,  rather,  from  within.  All  the  warn- 
ings are  against  heretics  and  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the 
church  from  among  the  ranks  of  its  own  followers.  In 
the  description  of  these  heretics  and  their  heresies  there  is 
a  strange  mixture  of  present  and  future  tenses  (3.  3,  5), 


212         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

which  suggest  that  the  writer  is  living  in  the  midst  of  the 
things  which  he  is  describing  and  at  the  same  time  is  at- 
tempting to  put  himself  back  into  the  apostolic  days  and 
picture  them  as  future.  He  assumes  the  character  of  a 
prophet,  but  inadvertently  drops  the  disguise  at  certain 
places.  He  says  that  many  shall  follow  the  false  teachers 
and  they  shall  make  merchandise  of  the  people,  and  then  he 
adds  that  their  sentence  lingers  not  and  their  destruction 
slumbers  not  (2.2,  3).  He  says  that  in  the  last  days 
mockers  shall  come,  saying,  "Where  is  the  hope  of  his  com- 
ing?" and  then  he  adds,  "For  this  they  willfully  forget," 
instead  of  "For  this  they  will  forget,"  which  would  be  the 
natural  phrase  if  this  were  real  prophecy. 

4.  In  3.  I,  2  the  author  says  that  he  writes  the  second 
epistle  as  he  wrote  the  first,  to  help  them  to  remember  the 
words  which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets,  and 
the  commandment  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour  "through  your 
apostles."  Does  not  this  last  phrase  sound  a  little  queerly, 
coming  from  Peter's  pen?  Would  not  Peter  have  said, 
"through  us,  the  apostles  of  the  Lord"  ?  Does  not  the  phrase 
"your  apostles"  seem  rather  objective  as  though  it  were 
used  by  one  to  whom  the  apostles,  like  the  holy  prophets,  be- 
longed to  a  generation  past  and  gone  ? 

5.  This  suggestion  is  strengthened  by  the  statement  found 
in  3.  4,  "From  the  day  that  the  fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things 
continue  as  they  were."  The  fathers  evidently  are  the 
fathers  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  reference,  there- 
fore, must  be  to  the  earliest  generations  of  Christians,  Such 
a  reference  would  be  altogether  unsuitable  to  Peter's  life- 
time.   It  must  belong  to  a  much  later  date. 

6.  In  I.  18  the  mount  of  the  transfiguration  is  called  "the 
holy  mount."  In  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  and  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  we  read  of  the  holy  temple  and 
of  the  Holy  Place  and  of  the  Holy  of  holies  in  the  temple, 
but  these  are  Jewish  phrases  reproducing  the  Old  Testament 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"       213 

faith.  The  whole  genius  of  the  New  Testament  is  opposed 
to  the  recognition  of  any  exclusively  holy  place.  It  heralds 
the  era  in  which  the  Father  is  to  be  worshiped  neither  in 
Mount  Gerizim  nor  in  Mount  Zion  nor  in  any  other  holy 
mount  set  apart  exclusively  for  that  purpose.  It  proclaims 
the  truth  that  God  can  be  worshiped  acceptably  in  any  and 
every  place  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  In  accordance  with  this 
principle  there  is  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament  outside  of 
this  passage  of  any  tendency  among  the  Christians  to  attach 
any  special  reverence  to  any  locaHty  because  of  its  connec- 
tion with  the  life  of  the  Lord.  As  one  result  of  this  fact 
there  is  not  a  single  spot  in  Palestine  to-day  upon  which  we 
can  be  sure  that  Jesus  ever  stood.  It  was  only  in  the  later 
days  when  all  sure  traditions  concerning  them  had  been 
buried  with  the  first  believers  that  places  began  to  be  called 
holy,  and  pilgrimages  began  to  be  made  to  them.  There 
were  no  holy  mounts  in  apostoHc  times.  There  were  no 
holy  places  or  localities  to  the  early  Christians.  They  had 
their  blessed  memories  and  their  sacred  associations  every- 
where. The  localization  of  holy  places  belongs  to  the  later 
generations,  and  this  appellation  of  "the  holy  mount"  in  this 
single  passage  in  our  New  Testament  marks  it  as  belonging 
to  a  later  date  than  any  of  the  other  New  Testament  books. 
In  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  there  is  a  vision  granted  to  the 
disciples  on  "the  holy  mountain,"  and  there  is  "a  voice 
from  heaven"  in  the  narrative,  and  it  may  be  that  the 
author  of  this  epistle  has  taken  both  phrases  from  this 
source. 

7.  In  3.  16  there  is  a  reference  to  Paul's  epistles  which 
parallels  them  with  the  "other  scriptures"  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  of  equal  canonical  authority.  Were  Paul's  epistles 
collected  in  Peter's  lifetime?  Were  they  recognized  as 
canonical  and  put  on  a  par  with  the  sacred  writings  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  in  Peter's  lifetime?  Moffatt  says,  "This 
allusion  to  a  collection  of  Pauline  epistles  is  an  anachronism 


214         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

which  forms  an  indubitable  water-mark  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  which  is  corroborated  by  the  allusion  to  'your 
apostles'  in  3.  2,  where  the  context,  with  its  collocation  of 
prophets  and  apostles,  reflects  the  second-century  division 
of  Scripture  into  these  two  classes."^^  fhe  passage  is  with- 
out parallel  in  our  New  Testament  and  it  bears  witness  to 
a  degree  of  canonicity  which  is  impossible  in  the  apostolic 
age. 

8.  Some  of  the  words  used  in  this  epistle  bear  testimony 
to  its  late  origin.  In  2.  22  there  are  the  words,  e^epajua, 
"evacuation,"  and  KvXiofiov,  "wallowance,"  neither  of  which 
can  be  found  anywhere  in  Greek  literature  until  long  after 
the  death  of  the  apostle  Peter.  The  earliest  occurrence  of 
the  former  is  in  Dioscorides,  about  A.  D.  100,  and  the 
earliest  occurrence  of  the  latter  is  in  the  second  century. 
In  3.  10  there  is  the  word  Kavoovfieva,  "in  fever-heat,"  which 
has  been  found  only  in  two  medical  writers,  Dioscorides, 
A.  D.  100,  and  Galen,  A.  D.  160.  Is  there  any  reason  to 
think  that  the  apostle  Peter  would  have  used  any  such  rare 
words  found  only  in  later  medical  works  ?  Is  not  their  oc- 
currence in  the  epistle  a  proof  that  it  was  written  some  time 
in  the  later  days  when  these  words  had  come  into  medical 
use? 

The  late  attestation  of  the  epistle  would  find  its  sufficient 
explanation  in  its  late  origin.  Its  late  origin  is  attested  by 
its  dependence  upon  writings  like  those  of  Josephus  and 
Clement  of  Rome  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  Other  in- 
dications of  its  late  origin  are  to  be  found  in  its  use  of  rare 
second-century  words  and  its  reference  to  the  Pauline  Epis- 
tles as  canonical  scripture,  and  its  allusions  to  "the  holy 
mount"  and  to  "your  apostles"  and  to  "the  fathers  who  have 
fallen  asleep."  These  all  belong  to  the  second-century  de- 
velopment of  church  Hterature  and  history. 


■  Moffatt,  op.  cit.,  pp.  363-4. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"       215 

IX.  Peculiarities  of  Doctrine 

There  are  two  peculiarities  of  doctrine  in  this  epistle  which 
we  ought  to  notice  before  coming  to  our  final  conclusions 
concerning  it.  i.  There  is  a  peculiar  doctrine  as  to  the 
creation  of  the  world.  The  author  says,  "There  were 
heavens  from  of  old,  and  an  earth  compacted  out  of  water 
and  amidst  water,  by  the  word  of  God"  (3.  5).  This  looks 
like  a  thoroughgoing  adoption  of  the  natural  philosophy  of 
Thales  of  Miletus,  who  taught  that  water  was  the  source 
of  all  things,  the  material  principle  out  of  which  all  things 
were  created.  Thales  has  been  called  the  founder  of  the 
Greek  philosophy  because  he  first  exhibited  a  scientific 
rather  than  a  mythical  tendency  in  the  explanation  of  the 
phenomena  of  the  natural  world.  Since  the  seed  of  all 
things  was  naturally  moist  and  the  nutriment  of  all  things 
was  moist,  and  seashells  were  found  on  the  tops  of  the 
mountains,  Thales  concluded  that  water  was  the  primal  ma- 
terial principle,  and  that  the  earth  was  compacted  out  of 
water,  and  through  water  all  things  came  into  being  and 
life.  It  was  a  first  crude  guess  at  the  secret  of  the  universe, 
and  it  was  soon  outgrown  in  the  Greek  philosophy,  and  it 
would  be  a  disappointment  to  find  this  discarded  philosophi- 
cal theorem  revived  and  given  a  place  in  the  inspired  scrip- 
tures of  our  New  Testament. 

2.  The  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  the  world 
finds  its  counterpart  in  a  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  destruction 
of  the  world.  The  author  goes  on  to  say,  "The  heavens 
that  now  are,  and  the  earth,  by  the  same  word  have  been 
stored  up  for  fire"  (3.7),  and  he  explains  what  he  means 
when  he  declares,  "The  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a 
thief;  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a 
great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  be  dissolved  with  fer- 
vent heat,  and  the  earth  and  the  works  that  are  therein 
shall  be  burned  up,"  and  again,  "The  heavens  being  on 


2i6         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

fire  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with 
fervent  heat,"  3.  10,  12.  Here  again  we  have  a  doctrine 
of  the  Greek  philosophy,  represented  by  the  contemporane- 
ous Stoicism,  and  not  to  be  found  anywhere  else  in  our  New 
Testament.  It  is  set  forth  in  detail  in  the  Apocalypse  of 
Peter,  from  which  the  author  of  this  epistle  may  have  taken 
it.  It  may  be  true,  but  shall  we  feel  any  compulsion  to  be- 
lieve it  on  the  single  authority  of  an  epistle  bearing  so  many 
marks  of  a  second-century  origin?  The  epistle  may  be  as 
far  astray  at  this  point  as  we  believe  it  to  be  in  the  promul- 
gation of  the  old  Thalesian  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  the 
world  from  water.  We  incline  to  hope  that  the  only 
authority  behind  both  of  these  doctrines  is  that  of  the  Greek 
philosophy,  and  that  apostolic  inspiration  or  guarantee  may 
be  denied  to  them  on  the  ground  that  this  epistle  is  not 
genuine. 

If  it  is  genuine,  how  can  we  explain  the  fact  that  it  dif- 
fers from  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  in  style,  and  topics,  and 
in  the  fate  of  its  reception?  While  the  First  Epistle  became 
rapidly  known  throughout  the  church,  why  is  this  epistle 
not  mentioned  until  the  close  of  the  second  century?  If  it 
is  genuine,  how  does  it  happen  that  in  the  Bibles  of  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  churches  in  the  second  century 
all  the  other  books  of  our  New  Testament  can  be  found  and 
this  one  epistle  is  excluded?  If  it  is  genuine,  how  do  we 
explain  its  literary  dependencies,  its  many  internal  indica- 
tions of  late  origin,  and  its  peculiar  second-century  theologi- 
cal doctrines?  It  is  small  wonder  that  the  relative  lack  of 
external  attestation  and  the  absolute  abundance  of  internal 
perplexities  have  led  the  majority  of  modern  scholars  to 
decide  that  in  this  epistle  we  have  a  pseudepigraphon  pub- 
lished some  time  in  the  second  century  under  the  name  of 
Peter,  just  as  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  and  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Peter  were.  We  quote  some  of  the  conclusions 
of  the  authorities. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        217 

X.  Conclusion  of  Various  Scholars 

1.  John  Calvin  declares,  "The  majesty  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  exhibits  itself  in  every  part  of  this  epistle."  Never- 
theless he  was  uncertain  as  to  its  authenticity  because  of  the 
"discrepancies  between  it  and  the  First"  Epistle.  Others 
are  equally  impressed  with  the  beauty  and  power  of  the 
epistle,  as,  for  example: 

2.  Farrar,  who  says,  "Whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  ver- 
dict concerning  its  direct  authenticity,  it  will  remain  to  the 
end  of  time  a  writing  full  of  instruction  which  is  undoubt- 
edly superior  to  all  the  writings  of  the  second  and  third 
centuries."^^  Farrar  believes  this  although  he  is  dubious 
as  to  its  genuineness. 

3.  On  the  contrary,  Edwin  A.  Abbott  is  disposed  to  value 
the  literary  merit  of  the  epistle  rather  slightly.  He  says, 
"By  vulgar  pomposity,  verbose  pedantry,  and  barren  plagiar- 
ism this  document  is  distinguishable  from  every  other  book 
of  the  New  Testament."^^ 

4.  Weiss  is  uncertain  what  to  conclude  concerning  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  epistle.  He  prefers  to  be  noncommittal  on 
that  subject.  He  ends  by  saying,  "The  possibility  that  the 
epistle  is  on  the  whole  what  it  claims  to  be  and  that  circum- 
stances unknown  to  us  alone  prevented  its  recognition  be- 
fore the  third  century  need  not  be  excluded  nor  the  ques- 
tion of  the  genuineness  be  declared  definitely  settled. "^^ 

5.  Plummer  is  a  trifle  more  decided.  He  says,  "The  ob- 
jections to  the  epistle  are  such  that  if  the  duty  of  fixing 
the  canon  of  the  New  Testament  had  fallen  upon  us,  we 
should  scarcely  have  ventured  on  the  existing  evidence  to 
include  the  epistle,  but  they  are  not  such  as  to  warrant  us 
in  reversing  the  decision  of  the  fourth  century  which  had 


"  Farrar,  Messages  of  the  Books,  p.  471. 
"  Expositor,  Second  Series,  vol.  iii,  p.  215. 
«  Weiss,  Introduction,  vol.  ii,  p.  174. 


2i8         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

evidence  we  have  not."^^  What  proof  is  there  of  this  as- 
sertion that  the  fourth  century  had  evidence  we  have  not? 
We  know  of  none.  The  larger  probabihty  in  the  case  is  that 
the  fourth  century  did  not  demand  the  evidence  we  should 
demand  in  such  a  case.  The  church  of  the  fourth  century 
was  not  a  critical  church,  and  it  neither  had  nor  cared  to 
have  the  critical  apparatus  we  demand  and  have  in  hand 
in  the  twentieth  century.  If  a  contrast  need  be  made,  we 
would  be  ready  to  claim  a  greater  critical  authority  for  the 
church  of  the  twentieth  century  than  for  the  church  of  the 
fourth  century.  Therefore  we  sympathize  more  fully  with 
the  position  of  the  authorities  which  follow. 

6.  Professor  Sheldon  declares  of  this  epistle,  "Until  its 
claims  are  more  clearly  established,  it  cannot  prudently  be 
treated  as  an  apostolic  writing."^'^ 

7.  At  the  close  of  his  excellent  discussion  of  the  subject 
in  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Chase  decides:  'Too 
many  independent  lines  of  evidence  converge  toward  one 
result  to  allow  of  hesitation.  The  only  conclusion  which  is 
in  accordance  with  the  evidence,  external  and  internal,  is 
that  'Second  Peter'  is  not  the  work  of  the  apostle. "^^ 

8.  Adeney  agrees,  "Weakly  attested  by  the  Fathers,  al- 
ways the  most  doubtful  book  in  the  New  Testament,  there 
is  little  to  be  said  in  answer  to  the  strong  objections  against 
it,  and  the  balance  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  denying  its 
genuineness."^^ 

9.  Jiilicher  asserts,  "The  pseudonymous  character  of  no 
other  New  Testament  writing  is  so  clearly  proved  as  is  that 
of  'Second  Peter,'  and  in  no  other  case  is  it  recognized  by 
so  many  even  of  the  extremely  conservative  critics.  'Second 
Peter'  is  without  doubt  the  last  portion  of  the  New  Testa- 


"  Books  of  the  Bible,  vol.  ii,  p.  293. 

"  Sheldon,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  128. 

«8Vol.  iii,  p.  816. 

*»  Adeney,  A  BibHcal  Introduction,  p.  449. 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        219 

ment  to  be  written,  and  it  has  the  least  right  to  be  in  the 
canon."^^ 

10.  As  one  example  of  the  judgment  of  one  of  the  most 
conservative  critics  we  quote  the  statement  of  Godet:  "The 
epistle  must  be  excluded,  if  not  from  the  canon,  at  least 
from  the  number  of  genuine  apostolical  works." 

11.  Finally,  with  fullest  approbation  we  cite  the  conclu- 
sion of  Bishop  Lightfoot:  "The  deficiency  of  external  evi- 
dence forbids  the  use  of  'Second  Peter'  in  controversy."*^ 

The  trouble  with  many  pious  minds  is  that  they  can- 
not reconcile  the  appropriation  of  an  authoritative  name 
with  fundamental  honesty  of  character.  They  are  ready 
to  say,  "If  the  writer  was  not  the  apostle  Peter,  he  was  a 
false  teacher,  a  corrupter  of  others,  and  a  hypocrite,  which 
seems  incredible  to  us."*^  The  ethics  of  such  a  literary 
appropriation  was  not  quite  the  same  in  ancient  times  as 
with  us.  At  least  the  whole  of  the  uncanonical  apocalyptical 
literature  of  both  the  pre-Christian  and  the  Christian  cen- 
turies was  published  by  seemingly  pious  people  with  the  best 
of  motives,  but  always  under  falsely  assumed  names.  It 
seems  to  have  been  an  accepted  and  allowable  literary  de- 
vice in  those  days.  However,  all  these  books  are  and  al- 
ways have  been  uncanonical;  and  if  the  "Second  Epistle  of 
Peter"  has  followed  their  example  in  borrowing  the  au- 
thority of  the  name  of  one  of  the  ancient  worthies  we  might 
conclude  upon  that  basis  that  it  ought  to  be  considered  un- 
canonical too,  for  it  would  be  "a  forgery  pseudonymous  and 
pseudepigraphic,  with  no  more  right  to  be  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament than  has  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  or  the  romance  of 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas."*^ 

In  all  probability  the  book  will  remain  in  our  New  Testa- 

*>  Julicher,  Einleitung,  s.  152. 

*^  Lightfoot,  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  p.  335. 

*»  International  Standard  Bible  Encyclopaedia,  p.  2356. 

«  Op.  ciL,  p.  2355. 


220         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

ment  until  the  end  of  time.  The  proof  of  its  unauthenticity 
always  will  fall  short  of  a  complete  demonstration  to  many 
minds.  Its  felicities  of  expression  in  the  English  transla- 
tion and  its  genuinely  religious  tone  and  its  devotional  and 
doctrinal  formulations  will  appeal  to  many  pious  souls,  and 
they  would  feel  that  they  had  suffered  a  serioiK  loss  if  the 
book  ever  should  be  removed  from  the  New  Testament 
by  any  authoritative  ecclesiastical  action.  It  has  estabhshed 
its  right  to  a  place  in  the  canon,  most  people  will  think,  by 
the  centuries  of  its  occupancy.  They  will  feel  like  saying: 
"Let  it  stay  where  it  is.  It  will  do  no  harm.  To  attempt  to 
remove  it  would  stir  up  controversy.  If  anybody  can  get 
any  good  out  of  it,  allow  them  that  privilege.  If  you  doubt 
its  genuineness,  you  need  not  use  it  in  any  doctrinal  debate ; 
but  all  can  derive  spiritual  benefit  from  its  pages."  Prob- 
ably such  conclusions  always  will  prevail. 

XI.  Place  of  Writing,  Date,  and  Destination 

The  epistle  itself  tells  us  nothing  explicitly  concerning 
these  things.  It  must  have  been  written  before  the  time  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  he  seems  to  consider  it  as  a 
writing  closely  related  to  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  It  is 
generally  believed  that  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter  was  written 
in  Egypt,  and  it  may  be  that  "Second  Peter"  also  was  writ- 
ten there.  The  probable  date  was  some  time  in  the  second 
century.  Strachan  says  from  A.  D.  100-115  and  Harnack 
says  from  A.  D.  160-175.  The  majority  of  the  critics  would 
set  the  date  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Among 
these  we  may  name  Bleek,  Chase,  Davidson,  Hilgenfeld, 
Holtzmann,  Jacoby,  Renan,  and  Von  Soden. 

Moffatt  inclines  to  agree  with  these,  and  he  says,  "To  sum 
up:  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  'Second  Peter'  is  a 
Catholic  Epistle,  addressed  to  Christendom  in  general ;  it  may 
be  defined  as  a  homily  thrown  into  epistolary  guise,  or  a 
pastoral  letter  of  warning  and  appeal.     .     .     .     The  evi- 


THE  "SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  PETER"        221 

dence  is  too  insecure  to  point  decisively  to  Egypt  rather 
than  to  Syro-Palestine  or  even  Asia  Minor  as  the  place  of 
its  origin.  Indications  of  its  date  or  soil  are  not  to  be  ex- 
pected in  the  case  of  this  or  of  any  pseudepigraphon.  'The 
real  author  of  any  such  work  had  to  keep  himself  altogether 
out  of  sight,  and  its  entry  upon  circulation  had  to  be  sur- 
rounded with  a  certain  mystery,  in  order  that  the  strange- 
ness of  its  appearance  at  a  more  or  less  considerable  interval 
after  the  putative  author's  death  might  be  concealed.'  "^* 

To  believe  that  a  pseudepigraphon  has  been  admitted  into 
the  company  of  the  New  Testament  books  will  distress  the 
faith  of  some  people.  To  others  it  will  seem  a  small  matter, 
for  they  are  disposed  to  consider  the  most  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Hterature  as  coming  under  this  category.  However, 
our  faith  ought  to  rest  most  comfortably  only  on  the  basis 
of  facts.  The  facts  have  shown  that  all  the  other  New 
Testament  books  were  regarded  as  canonical  by  early  Chris- 
tians, when  this  epistle  was  not.  If  the  Christians  of  the 
first  two  centuries  found  the  Bible  a  sufficient  rule  for  faith 
and  practice  without  this  epistle,  so  could  we,  if  we  felt  that 
it  were  necessary  to  do  so. 

**  Moffatt,  Introduction,  pp.  368-369. 


PART  V 
THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE 

The  epistle  of  Jude  is  a  very  short  epistle  of  only  twenty- 
five  verses  in  our  version,  but  in  this  short  space  it  exhibits 
some  very  noteworthy  peculiarities.  We  note  these  first  of 
all. 

I.  Peculiarities 

I.  Triple  Arrangement.  Dean  Farrar  has  pointed  out 
that  Jude  has  an  extraordinary  fondness  for  triple  arrange- 
ments. "In  pausing  to  tell  us  that  Enoch  is  the  seventh  from 
Adam  he  at  once  shows  his  interest  in  sacred  numbers,  and 
throughout  his  epistle  he  has  scarcely  omitted  a  single  op- 
portunity of  throwing  his  statements  into  groups  of  three. 
Thus  those  whom  he  addresses  are  sanctified,  kept,  elect, 
(verse  i),  and  he  wishes  them  mercy,  love,  peace  (verse  2)  ; 
the  instances  of  divine  retribution  are  the  Israelites  in  the 
wilderness,  the  fallen  angels,  and  the  cities  of  the  plain 
(verses  5-7) ;  the  dreamers  whom  he  denounces  are  corrupt, 
rebellious,  and  railing  (verse  8)  ;  they  have  walked  in  the 
way  of  Cain,  Baalam,  and  Korah  (verse  11)  ;  they  are  mur- 
murers,  discontented,  self-willed  (verse  16) ;  they  are 
boastful,  partial,  greedy  of  gain  (verse  16)  ;  they  are  sep- 
aratists, egotistic,  unspiritual  (verse  19).  Lastly,  they  are 
to  be  dealt  with  in  three  classes,  of  which  one  class  is  to  be 
refuted  in  disputation,  another  saved  by  effort,  and  the 
third  pitied  with  detestation  of  their  sins  (verses  22,  23). 
But  saints  are  to  pray  in  the  spirit,  keep  themselves  in  the 
love  of  God,  and  await  the  mercy  of  Christ  (verses  20-21) 
and  glory  is  ascribed  to  God  before  the  past,  in  the  present, 
and  unto  the  farthest  future  (verse  25).  .  .  .  The  re- 
currence of  this  arrangement  no  less  than  eleven  times  in 
twenty-five  verses  is  obviously  intentional,  or,  at  any  rate, 
225 


226         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

characteristic  of  the  writer's  mode  of  thought.  It  could  not 
be  paralleled  from  any  other  passage  of  Scripture  of  equal 
length."! 

Canon  Maclear  is  sure  that  the  epistle  "is  modeled 
throughout  on  a  careful  plan — ^bordering  on  the  artificial — 
the  main  divisions,  subdivisions,  and  instances  all  being  ar- 
ranged on  a  threefold  system. 

A.  Preface,  verses  1-4. 

I.  Salutation,  verses  i,  2. 
11.  Object  of  the  letter,  verse  3. 
III.  Reason  for  this  object,  verse  4. 

B.  Warnings,  verses  5-19. 

I.  Three  instances  of  Divine  punishment  for  corporate 
wickedness  applied  to  the  case  of  the  libertines 
against  whom  Jude  writes,  verses  5-10. 

1.  The    rebellious    Israelites    in    the    wilderness, 
verses  5,  8. 

2.  The  unfaithful  angels  in  contrast  to  the  faith- 
ful, verses  6,  9. 

3.  The  sensual  cities  of  the  plain,  verses  7,  10. 

11.  Three  instances  of  individual  wickedness  illustrating 
the  sins  of  these  evildoers,  verse  11. 

1.  Cain,  illustrating  disobedience. 

2.  Baalam,  illustrating  greed. 

3.  Korah,  illustrating  railing. 

III.  Three  vivid  descriptions  of  these  latest  rebels,  with 
three  tokens  by  which  their  condemnation  may  be 
evident,  verses  12-19. 
I.  Illustration  of  their  state  by  images  from  Na- 
ture, verses  12,  13;  to  be  recognized  from  its 
agreement  with  the  words  of  Enoch,  verses  14, 

15- 

»  Farrar,  Early  Days  of  Christianity,  pp.  1 53-154- 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  227 

2.  By  their  base  thoughts  and  language,  verse  16 ; 
fulfilling  the  prophecies  of  the  Apostles,  verses 
17,  18. 

3.  By  their  unfaithful  conduct,  attested  by  their 
lack  of  spirituality,  verse  19. 

C.  Exhortations,  verses  20-25. 

I.  As  to  themselves,  verses  20,  21,  let  his  readers  be 
firm  in : 

1.  Faith,  verse  20. 

2.  Love,  verse  21a. 

3.  Hope,  verse  21b. 

n.  With  reference  to  the  libertines,  verses  22,  23,  let 
the  faithful  treat: 

1.  Some  of  them  with  gentle  measures,  verse  22. 

2.  Others  with  strong  remedies,  verse  23a. 

3.  But  all  their  sins  with  utter  disapproval,  verse 
23b. 

HL  As  regards  God :  Doxology,  verses  24,  25,  let  all  join 
in  thanks  to  him  for: 

1.  His  support  against  similar  falhng  away,  verse 
24a. 

2.  His  grace  in  sanctification,  verse  24b. 

3.  His  wisdom  in  overruling  everything,  verse  25. "^ 

This  thoroughgoing  triple  classification  of  the  material  of 
the  epistle  bears  witness  either  to  a  remarkably  dominant 
characteristic  of  the  author  or  to  an  equally  remarkable  in- 
genuity of  the  analyst. 

2.  Peculiar  Expressions.  Thayer  gives  a  list  of  twenty 
words  and  phrases  peculiar  to  Jude  among  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  twenty  in  twenty-five  verses.  There  are  only 
eleven  in  the  three  epistles  of  John,  only  seventy-three  in 
the  much  longer  epistle  of  James,  only  sixty-three  in  First 

*  Book  by  Book,  pp.  203-204. 


228         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Peter,  and  only  fifty-seven  in  "Second  Peter,"  so  that  among 
the  Catholic  Epistles  the  Epistle  of  Jude  is  peculiar  for  the 
unusual  number  of  new  and  strange  expressions  found  in 
so  small  a  space. 

3.  Apocryphal  Quotations.  The  Epistle  of  Jude  is  the 
only  New  Testament  book  which  quotes  from  one  of  the 
apocryphal  books  by  name.  In  verse  14  the  Book  of  Enoch 
is  cited  and  in  verse  6  there  is  a  reference  to  the  fall  of  the 
angels  through  lust  for  mortal  women,  the  chief  authority 
for  which  is  to  be  found  in  this  same  Book  of  Enoch.  In 
verse  9  there  is  a  reference  to  the  story  of  the  conflict  be- 
tween Michael  and  Satan  for  the  body  of  Moses,  and  Origen 
and  Didymus  and  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  all  vouch  for  the 
fact  that  this  narrative  was  found  in  the  apocryphal  Assump- 
tion of  Moses.  The  church  has  made  the  Epistle  of  Jude 
canonical  and  it  has  not  made  the  Book  of  Enoch  and  the 
Assumption  of  Moses  canonical. 

It  follows  that  a  canonical  book  may  quote  from  uncanon- 
ical  sources,  and  that  it  may  quote  traditions  in  which  there 
is  a  large  element  of  mythology  if  not  of  absolute  untruth. 
Did  the  angels  fall  through  lust  for  mortal  women?  Most 
of  us  would  be  willing  to  say  that  we  hope  not  and  that  we 
believe  not.  Did  the  archangel  Michael  ever  contend  with 
Satan  for  the  body  of  Moses?  Most  of  us  feel  sure  that  he 
never  did.  If  Jude's  only  authority  for  these  statements  is 
to  be  found  in  these  apocryphal  and  uninspired  books,  the 
mere  fact  that  he  quotes  them  does  not  guarantee  their 
truthfulness.  He  probably  believed  these  tales  to  be  true 
and  these  apocryphal  books  to  be  good  authorities  for  them, 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  we  need  to  believe  either  the  truth 
of  the  tales  or  the  validity  of  these  authorities. 

Paul  gives  us  the  names  of  the  two  Egyptian  magicians 
who  withstood  Moses  before  Pharaoh,  although  these  names 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  his  only  au- 
thority for  them  doubtless  was  to  be  found  in  the  current 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  229 

and  utterly  untrustworthy  tradition.  Both  Stephen  and 
Paul  tell  us  that  the  giving  of  the  law  was  mediated  through 
angels,  though  there  is  nothing  said  about  that  fact  in  the 
book  of  Exodus.  Paul  alludes  to  the  tradition  of  the  roll- 
ing rock  which  followed  the  Israelites  in  their  wilderness 
wandering,  and  Stephen  repeats  the  tradition  that  Moses 
was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians.  The 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  makes  reference  to  the 
tradition  concerning  the  martyrdom  of  Isaiah,  and  both 
Jesus  and  James  tell  us  that  the  drought  in  the  time  of 
Elijah  was  three  and  a  half  years  long.^  After  the  time  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  that  period  of  three  and  a  half  years, 
the  broken  seven,  had  become  symbolical  of  any  time  of 
distress  and  trial.  Tradition  had  applied  it  to  the  time  of 
the  drought,  and  Jesus  and  James  adopt  the  traditional  state- 
ment of  the  case,  although  the  Old  Testament  account, 
the  only  authority  on  the  subject,  expressly  limits  the 
drought  to  less  than  three  years. 

The  inspiration  of  all  of  these  men  was  consistent,  there- 
fore, with  their  quotation  from  uninspired  and  unauthorita- 
tive sources  of  statements  which  were  neither  literally  nor 
typically  true.  Let  us  look  more  closely  at  these  apocryphal 
authorities  quoted  by  Jude. 

II.  The  Apocryphal  Authorities 

I.  The  Book  of  Enoch.  This  was  originally  written  in 
Hebrew.  Later  it  was  translated  into  Greek,  and  only  a  few 
fragments  of  this  version  have  been  preserved.  The  book 
was  known  to  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Origen,  Augustine,  Jerome,  and  others  of  the  church  Fathers. 
Among  these  Tertullian  alone  thought  that  it  ought  to  be 
regarded  as  a  canonical  book,  and  his  two  chief  reasons 
for  coming  to  that  conclusion  were  that  it  witnessed  to 

» 2  Tim.  3.  8;  Acts  7.  38;  Gal.  3.  19;  i  Cor.  10.  4;  Acts  7.  22;  Heb. 
II.  37;  Luke  4.  25;  Jas.  5.  17. 


230         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Christ  and  that  it  was  quoted  by  "the  apostle  Jude."* 
Origen  declared  that  it  was  uncanonical  and  of  doubtful 
value.^  Augustine,^  Jerome'^  and  Chrysostom  spoke  of  the 
story  of  the  angels  and  the  daughters  of  men  as  a  baseless 
fable.  Jerome  says  that  many  doubted  the  authenticity  and 
the  authority  of  the  Epistle  of  Jude  because  it  quoted  from 
such  an  apocryphal  source.  We  can  trace  the  progress  of 
critical  thought  on  this  matter  from  Tertullian  to  Jerome. 
TertulHan  was  wilHng  to  make  the  Book  of  Enoch  canonical 
because  "the  apostle  Jude"  quoted  from  it.  In  Jerome's  day 
many  were  ready  to  decide  that  the  Epistle  of  Jude  could  not 
be  canonical  because  Jude  quoted  from  this  apocryphal  book. 
With  the  exception  of  the  few  fragments  mentioned  above, 
the  Book  of  Enoch  was  lost  to  the  modern  world  until  the 
year  1773,  when  the  African  explorer  Bruce  brought  back 
from  Abyssinia  a  copy  of  an  Ethiopic  version  which  had 
been  made  from  the  Greek  probably  about  A.  D.  600.  It 
seems  to  be  of  composite  authorship.  It  is  falsely  ascribed. 
It  begins  with  the  statement  that  Moses  in  his  hundred  and 
twentieth  year  handed  it  to  Joshua  with  the  Pentateuch. 
However,  there  is  general  agreement  among  the  scholars 
that  it  was  composed  at  different  periods  in  the  second  and 
the  first  centuries  before  the  Christian  era.  It  contains  the 
passage  quoted  by  Jude.  It  tells  how  two  hundred  angels 
came  down  to  earth  and  were  led  astray  by  their  desire  for 
the  very  beautiful  daughters  of  men  and  begat  a  race  of 
giants  and  taught  them  sorcery  and  other  corrupting  arts, 
and  how  Enoch  was  commissioned  by  the  Almighty  to  tell 
these  "watchers  of  heaven,  who  have  deserted  the  lofty  sky, 
and  their  holy  everlasting  station,  who  have  been  polluted 
with  women"  that  their  sentence  would  be  to  be  bound  for 
seventy  generations  underneath  the  earth,  till  the  day  of 


*  De  cultu  fern.  I,  iii.  '  Contra  Cels.,  V,  liv. 

•  De  Civ.  Dei,  XV,  xxiii,  4.  *  De  Vir.  lUustr.  iv. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  231 

their  judgment  when  they  shall  be  thrown  into  the  lowest 
depths  of  the  fire,  and  be  shut  up  forever  (Enoch  10.  15,  16). 
Later  Enoch  was  shown  their  punishment  in  a  vision  and 
he  was  told,  "This  is  the  prison  of  the  angels;  and  here  are 
they  kept  forever"  (21.  6). 

The  latest  editor  of  the  Book  of  Enoch,  R.  H.  Charles, 
says  of  it,  "The  influence  of  Enoch  on  the  New  Testament 
has  been  greater  than  that  of  all  the  other  apocryphal  and 
pseudepigraphical  books  taken  together."®  Some  twenty- 
four  coincidences  have  been  pointed  out  between  the  Book 
of  Enoch  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  and  some  twenty-one 
coincidences  between  this  book  and  the  Gospels  according 
to  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John.  Traces  of  its  influence  can 
be  found  in  the  book  of  Acts,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Epistle  of  Peter  and  "Second 
Peter."  It  seems  to  have  been  known  to  the  authors  of  all 
of  these  books  as  well  as  to  the  two  brothers,  Jesus  and 
Jude. 

2.  The  Assumption  of  Moses.  This  book  had  some  cir- 
culation in  the  early  Christian  Church.  It  is  quoted  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen  and  others.  It  was  in- 
cluded in  the  stichometry  of  Nicephorus,  and  he  gave  it 
one  thousand  four  hundred  stichoi,  which  would  make 
it  about  the  same  size  as  the  Apocalypse  of  John.  The  book 
had  been  lost  sight  of  for  many  centuries  when,  in  1861, 
about  one  third  of  it  was  discovered  in  a  palimpsest  in  the 
Ambrosian  library  at  Milan.  This  portion  does  not  contain 
the  story  of  the  conflict  between  Michael  and  Satan,  so  that 
we  have  to  depend  upon  the  authority  of  the  church  Fathers 
as  to  Jude's  quotation  of  it  from  this  source. 

The  book  is  very  interesting  to  us  because  it  was  written 
in  all  probability  during  our  Lord's  lifetime,  and  there  are 
so  many  parallels  between  the  eschatological  discourses  of 


•  Charles,  The  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  41. 


232         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Jesus  as  recorded  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  the 
description  of  the  signs  of  the  end  of  the  world  as  given  in 
this  book  that  it  would  seem  that  Jesus  as  well  as  Jude  must 
have  been  acquainted  either  with  the  book  itself  or  with  the 
current  traditions  and  theology  to  which  it  gave  expression. 
Since  the  references  in  Jude  are  so  direct,  the  former  sup- 
position would  seem  the  more  probable  one.  The  book 
seems  to  have  suggested  some  of  the  phrases  used  by 
Stephen  in  his  defense  before  the  Sanhedrin  and  some  of 
the  language  of  "Second  Peter."  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
Jesus  and  Jude  and  Stephen  seem  to  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  book  and  influenced  by  it,  it  is  rather  noteworthy 
that  no  parallel  with  it  can  be  adduced  from  the  Apocalypse 
of  John. 

These  apocryphal  books  were  early  renounced  by  the 
Jews.  They  had  a  somewhat  longer  vogue  among  the 
Christians  but  at  last  they  were  rejected  as  unauthoritative 
and  filled  with  corrupting  and  blasphemous  tales.  In  so  far 
as  the  apocalyptical  language  of  Jesus  and  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament was  influenced  by  them,  it  would  seem  to  be  justifi- 
able now  to  conclude  that  it  belongs  to  a  species  of  litera- 
ture which  has  been  discredited  and  discarded,  and  that 
whatever  message  it  may  have  had  for  the  first  Christian 
generations  it  has  neither  comforting  nor  illuminating  mes- 
sage for  us.  It  represents  no  inspired  authority,  even 
though  its  phrases  were  adopted  by  Jesus  and  its  stories  and 
prophecies  were  believed  and  quoted  by  Jude. 

Of  the  Epistle  of  Jude  it  has  been  said,  It  "certainly 
presents  more  surprising  phenomena  than  any  other  book 
of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  in  many  respects  altogether 
unique."^  We  have  mentioned  three  of  these  surprising 
phenomena,  its  unique  expressions,  its  triple  arrangement, 
and  its  quotation  of  apocryphal  authorities.     Of  the  three 


•  Farrar,  Messages  of  the  Books,  p.  450. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  233 

the  last  would  seem  to  be  the  most  surprising.    We  turn  now 
to  some  of  the  more  general  characteristics  of  the  book. 

III.  General  Characteristics 

1.  Poetic  Feeling.  Jude  has  something  of  the  love  of 
nature  and  of  the  touch  of  poetry  in  his  composition  which 
we  notice  in  Jesus  and  James,  his  brothers.  He  has  seen 
and  appreciated  the  flying  clouds,  wind-swept  and  water- 
less, giving  a  promise  of  rain  which  never  came.  He  has 
noted  the  damaged  orchard  after  a  tornado  had  uprooted 
its  trees  and  their  autumn  fruitlessness  and  their  future 
hopelessness  had  seemed  to  him  a  fit  symbol  of  those  de- 
filers  of  the  Christian  feasts  whose  life  had  been  fruitless 
and  whose  destruction  seemed  to  be  final.  He  had  watched 
the  sea  waves  washing  up  the  sewerage  and  the  refuse  of 
some  city  on  its  filthy  shore.  He  had  been  startled  by  some 
meteor's  flight  across  the  Palestinian  plain,  and  it  had 
seemed  to  him  that  its  momentary  illumination  was  fol- 
lowed by  even  a  greater  blackness  of  darkness  than  before. 
Its  feeble  and  fleeting  light  made  the  following  darkness 
seem  abiding  and  eternal.  There  is  enough  of  this  allusion 
to  natural  phenomena  in  the  epistle  to  show  that  Jude  had 
a  measure  at  least  of  the  poetic  insight  and  feeling  displayed 
by  his  brothers. 

2.  Literary  Merit.  Origen  declared  that  though  the  epis- 
tle was  of  but  few  lines,  it  was  "full  of  powerful  words  of 
heavenly  grace."!*'  Adam  Clarke  says :  "This  epistle  contains 
some  very  sublime  and  nervous  passages.  From  the  tenth 
to  the  thirteenth  verses  inclusive  the  description  of  the 
false  teachers  is  bold,  happy,  energetic.  The  exhortation  of 
verses  twenty  and  twenty-one  is  both  forcible  and  affection- 
ate. The  doxology,  verses  twenty-four  and  twenty-five,  is 
peculiarly  dignified  and  sublime."    This  doxology  is  one  of 

w  Matt.,  torn.  X,  17,  on  Matt.  13.  55. 


234         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

the  finest  in  the  New  Testament.  The  epistle  throughout 
has  a  vigorous  and  original  style.  Its  vocabulary  is  un- 
usually rich. 

3.  Sternness  of  Tone.  Its  tone  is  severe  and  denuncia- 
tory, for  it  is  a  note  of  warning  against  certain  individuals 
whose  pernicious  activity  was  endangering  the  church. 
This  epistle  almost  deserves  to  rank  with  the  Great  Denun- 
ciation recorded  in  the  twenty-third  chapter  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Matthew.  It  shows  Jude  a  true  brother  to 
Jesus  in  his  vehemence  of  denunciation  when  it  seemed  to 
him  that  the  occasion  demanded  the  unqualified  truth. 
Jude  calls  these  libertines  who  have  crept  into  the  church 
traitors  and  spies,  deniers  of  the  Christ  and  perverters  of 
God's  grace,  faultfinders,  sycophants,  hypocrites  and  liars, 
schismatics  and  sensualists.  He  likens  them  to  Cain  and 
Baalam  and  Korah  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  and  the  lost  angels.  He  does  not  spare  them  at 
any  point. 

As  Jesus  pronounced  the  great  invective  against  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  and  as  James  denounced  the  woes 
upon  the  selfish  rich  in  his  epistle,  this  younger  brother  Jude 
uses  the  most  forceful  language  at  his  command  in  his  de- 
scription of  the  impudent  and  devilish  detractors  and  apos- 
tates who  were  threatening  the  peace  and  the  life  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Moflfatt  calls  the  epistle  "a  sort  of  fiery 
cross  to  rouse  the  churches."^  ^  Jude  says  that  he  had  had 
it  in  mind  to  write  a  treatise  on  the  subject  of  the  Common 
Salvation,  but  the  emergency  seemed  so  great  that  he  sub- 
stitutes this  short  epistle.  The  body  of  the  epistle  has  little  in- 
terest for  us  because  it  has  to  do  with  men  and  circumstances 
long  passed  away,  but  the  beginning  and  the  ending  of  the 
epistle  have  a  timeless  and  universal  appeal,  and  they  show 
how  much  we  have  lost  in  that  Jude  did  not  write  on  that 
more  congenial  theme. 

"  Moffatt,  Introduction,  p.  358. 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  235 

IV.  The  Author 

The  epistle  purports  to  have  been  written  by  "Jude,  a 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James."  "Jude" 
was  a  very  common  name  among  the  Jews.  It  had  had  its 
exceeding  honor  and  it  was  to  have  its  exceeding  shame. 
Judas  Maccabeus  was  the  national  hero  of  the  later  Jew- 
ish history,  a  patriot  without  a  peer.  Judas  Iscariot  was  to 
stand  pilloried  forever  in  world  history  as  the  traitor  to 
the  highest  and  best  of  the  human  race.  There  are  six  Judes 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  i.  Judas  of  GaHlee,  a 
revolutionary  leader  who  perished  before  any  one  of  our 
New  Testament  books  was  written.  2.  Judas  of  Straight 
Street,  Damascus,  with  whom  Paul  lodged  after  his  vision 
and  conversion,  but  otherwise  unknown  to  us.  3.  Judas 
Barsabbas,  who  was  sent  with  Silas  as  the  official  represen- 
tative of  the  Jerusalem  council  to  the  church  at  Antioch. 
4.  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  the  twelve,  a  traitor  in  Gethsemane 
and  a  suicide  after  the  sad  event  of  the  betrayal  had  become 
assured.  We  have  no  reason  to  think  that  any  one  of  these 
four  had  anything  to  do  with  the  writing  of  this  epistle. 

Some  have  thought  that  the  next  Jude  in  our  Hst  was  its 
author.  5.  There  was  a  Jude  who  was  one  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  according  to  the  two  apostolical  lists  given  by  Luke, 
one  in  the  Gospel  and  one  in  the  book  of  Acts.^^  fhis  Jude 
is  distinguished  from  Judas  Iscariot  in  one  passage  in  the 
Gospel  according  to  John  and  he  is  said  to  have  asked  Jesus 
a  question  about  his  manifestation  to  the  disciples  and  not 
to  the  world. ^3  We  are  told  nothing  more  about  him  any- 
where in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  other  two  apostolical 
lists,  found  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  and  the 
Gospel  according  to  Mark,i^  Jude's  name  does  not  occur, 
but  the  name  "Thaddseus  with  the  surname  of  Lebbaeus" 


"Luke  6.  16.     Acts  i.  13.  "John  14.  22. 

"  Matt.  10.  2.    Mark  3.  16. 


236         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

takes  its  place.  These  two,  Jude  and  Thaddaeus,  are  sup- 
posed, therefore,  to  be  identical. 

In  the  Authorized  Version  in  Luke's  two  lists  of  the 
apostles  the  name  reads  "Jude  the  brother  of  James,"  but 
that  was  a  mistranslation  of  the  Greek  and  was  intended  to 
identify  the  apostle  Jude  with  the  writer  of  this  epistle. 
The  correct  translation,  "Jnde  the  son  of  James,"  was  found 
in  Tyndale's,  Cranmer's,  and  Luther's  versions  and  it  is  re- 
stored in  the  Revised  Versions  of  to-day.  This  Jude,  then, 
was  an  apostle,  had  two  names,  Jude  and  Thaddaeus,  with 
a  surname,  Lebbaeus,  and  he  was  the  son  of  James  the  Less 
and  the  grandson  of  Alphaeus. 

Did  this  man  write  the  Epistle  of  Jude?  We  think  not, 
for  the  following  reasons,  ( i )  Tradition  says  that  this  Jude 
labored  in  Syria  and  died  in  Edessa,  but  the  Epistle  of  Jude 
is  not  in  the  earliest  Syrian  Bible,  the  Peshito.  It  surely 
would  have  been  admitted  to  their  canon  if  it  had  been 
written  by  the  apostle  who  had  labored  in  their  own  terri- 
tory. (2)  The  author  of  the  epistle  speaks  of  the  apostles 
in  the  most  objective  fashion  as  if  he  himself  had  no  con- 
nection with  them.  He  exhorts  his  readers  to  remember 
what  the  apostles  had  said  to  them  (verses  17,  18),  and 
never  suggests  that  the  words  which  he  quotes  were  his 
own.  (3)  He  evidently  did  not  have  apostolic  authority  or 
he  would  have  been  more  independent  in  his  personal  procla- 
mation of  the  truth,  and  he  would  not  have  been  likely  to 
introduce  himself  under  the  surety  of  another  man's  name, 
as  "the  brother  of  James." 

Therefore  we  turn  finally  to  the  sixth  Jude  mentioned 
in  our  New  Testament  as  the  most  probable  author  of  the 
epistle.  6.  This  is  Jude,  the  brother  of  James,  who  stood 
at  the  head  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem  and  who  was  the 
brother  of  Jesus.  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  the  brother 
of  John,  had  died  before  this  epistle  was  written.  The  one 
James  who  was  prominent  in  the  church  in  the  later  apos- 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  237 

tolic  days  was  the  man  in  authority  in  the  mother  church  of 
Christendom  at  Jerusalem.  He  may  have  been  chosen  for 
this  presidency  partly  because  of  the  fact  that  he  was  a 
brother  of  Jesus  as  well  as  because  of  his  pre-eminent  per- 
sonal abihties. 

Both  of  these  brothers,  James  and  Jude,  wrote  epistles 
and  neither  of  them  introduces  himself  to  his  readers  by 
this  highest  honor  he  could  have  had  in  the  church,  as  "the 
brother  of  Jesus."  Why  is  this?  Probably  because  of  their 
reverence  for  the  brother  who  had  been  resurrected  and  de- 
clared to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power.  Humility  would 
prevent  them  from  laying  any  pubHc  or  special  stress  upon 
their  claim  to  blood  relationship  with  the  Redeemer  of  men 
and  the  Saviour  of  the  race.  James  was  content  to  call  him- 
self "the  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and 
Jude  in  all  modesty  follows  his  example  and  calls  himself 
"the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ  and  brother  of  James." 

We  know  nothing  of  Jude  in  later  tradition  except  that 
one  incident  concerning  his  grandchildren  recorded  by 
Hegesippus  has  been  preserved  by  Eusebius.^^  fjg  ^eUg  yg 
that  these  two  grandchildren,  Zocer  and  James,  were  living 
in  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Domitian,  and  the  emperor  hav- 
ing heard  that  they  belonged  to  the  royal  line  of  David,  and 
fearing  that  they  would  make  an  attempt  to  regain  the 
throne,  summoned  them  into  his  presence  for  an  examina- 
tion. He  found  they  were  poor  peasants  with  hands  hard- 
ened with  toil,  and  they  told  him  that  they  owned  only 
thirty-nine  acres  of  land  between  them  and  that  the  only 
kingdom  to  which  they  aspired  was  a  heavenly  and  angelic 
one  which  was  to  appear  at  the  end  of  the  world.  Then 
Domitian  dismissed  them,  "despising  them  as  of  no  ac- 
count," and  he  issued  a  decree  to  stop  the  persecution  of  the 
Christian  Church. 


"  Hist.  Eccl.  iii,  20.    Also  compare  Philip  of  Side,  Texte  und  Unter- 
suchungen,  v,  2,  p.  169. 


238         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

The  grandchildren  when  they  were  released  "ruled  the 
churches,  because  they  were  witnesses  and  were  also  rela- 
tives of  the  Lord."  They  lived  until  the  time  of  Trajan, 
held  in  honor  among  the  Christians  because  of  their  faith- 
ful testimony  in  the  imperial  court  and  because  of  their 
illustrious  lineage.  We  conclude  that  their  grandfather 
Jude,  the  brother  of  James,  who  was  the  brother  of  Jesus, 
was  the  author  of  this  epistle,  for  this  conclusion  agrees 
with  the  earliest  church  tradition  and  there  are  indications 
of  these  relationships  in  the  style  and  the  references  of  the 
epistle  itself,  and  the  name  of  this  Jude  was  so  insignificant 
in  the  early  church  history  that  it  would  not  seem  likely  to 
tempt  any  forger  to  its  use. 

V.  Authenticity 

The  epistle  is  not  in  the  Peshito.  It  is  not  quoted  by 
Justin  Martyr  or  Irenaeus,  and  there  are  very  few  refer- 
ences to  it  among  the  early  writers.  The  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  recovered  by  Bryennios  in  1875  after  cen- 
turies of  disappearance,  and  variously  dated  by  the  authori- 
ties from  A.  D.  80  to  120,  has  a  passage  in  2.  7  which  reads, 
"Thou  shalt  not  hate  anyone,  but  some  thou  shalt  rebuke, 
and  for  some  thou  shalt  pray,  and  some  thou  shalt  love  above 
thine  own  life."  Professor  Chase  and  Professor  Zahn  be- 
lieve that  this  passage  is  founded  on  Jude  22;  and  if  that  is 
true,  we  have  a  recognition  of  Jude  before  or  near  the  end 
of  the  first  century.  Eusebius  classed  it  among  the  disputed 
books.    Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  rejected  it. 

On  the  other  hand  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  too  short  and 
too  insignificant  to  be  quoted  often,  and  that  its  surprising 
quotations  from  apocryphal  and  suspected  sources  and  its 
other  strange  and  unique  phenomena  naturally  would  arouse 
some  question  concerning  it.  Nevertheless,  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  contains  it  in  its  canonical  list.  It  is  found  in  the 
Itala  or  Old  Latin  version.     It  was  known  and  used  very 


THE  EPISTLE  OF  JUDE  239 

generally  in  the  Western  church  at  a  very  early  date.  Ter- 
tullian  believed  it  to  be  genuine  and  apostolic.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  quotes  it  as  Scripture  and  comments  upon  it.^® 
Origen  does  the  same  and  seems  to  have  accepted  it  himself, 
although  he  knew  that  others  had  doubts  concerning  it. 
Didymus  of  Alexandria  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  epistle, 
though  he  too  knew  of  doubts  as  to  its  authenticity.  Augus- 
tine refers  to  it  as  "the  canonical  epistle  of  the  Apostle 
Jude-''^*^  Jerome  decides  that  it  ought  to  be  reckoned 
among  the  Scriptures.  Athanasius  included  it  in  his  canon. 
The  councils  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  360  and  of  Hippo,  A.  D. 
393  and  of  Carthage,  A.  D.  397  put  it  into  the  canon  by  for- 
mal action  and  it  has  remained  there  ever  since.  Luther  de- 
cided against  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle,  and  he  was  fol- 
lowed by  Semler,  Schleiermacher,  Neander,  Reuss,  Baur, 
and  Hilgenfeld.  However,  Zahn  points  out  the  fact  that  it 
was  accepted  about  the  year  A.  D.  200  in  all  the  lands  around 
the  Mediterranean  Sea,  and  this  would  not  have  been  likely 
to  be  true  if  it  had  been  a  forgery  of  the  second  century. 
It  must  have  been  accepted  as  a  genuine  product  of  the 
apostolic  age.     Harnack  agrees  with  this  conclusion. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  epistle  to  indicate  any  particular 
place  or  any  definite  time  for  its  writing.  Alexandria,  Asia 
Minor,  and  Palestine  have  been  suggested  as  the  locality 
of  those  addressed,  and  such  good  and  bad  people  as  are 
pictured  in  the  epistle  may  have  lived  in  any  of  these  places. 
Chase  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary  thinks  that  it  was  writ- 
ten about  the  same  time  with  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the 
Apocalypse,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Epistle  of 
Peter.  Zahn  suggests  the  years  A.  D.  70-75,  Chase,  Cred- 
ner,  Ewald,  Hofmann,  Keil,  Lumby,  Reuss,  Salmon,  Sief- 
fert,  and  Von  Soden  would  date  the  epistle  shortly  prior  to 
the  reign  of  Domitian  A.  D.  8r.     Those  who  accept  it  as 

16  Paed.  Ill,  viii,  Strom.  Ill,  ii,  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.  VI,  xiv,  I. 
"  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  xviii,  38. 


240         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

authentic  must  agree  that  it  was  written  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  first  century. 

Salmon  in  his  Introduction,  speaking  of  the  Epistles  of 
James  and  Jude,  says,  "What  is  really  surprising  is  that  of 
these  two,  it  is  the  letter  of  the  less  celebrated  man  which 
seems  to  have  been  the  better  known,  and  to  have  obtained 
the  wider  circulation.  The  external  testimony  to  the  Epistle 
of  James  is  comparatively  weak,  and  it  is  only  the  excel- 
lence of  the  internal  evidence  which  removes  all  hesitation. 
Now,  the  case  is  just  the  reverse  with  regard  to  Jude's 
epistle.  There  is  very  little  in  the  letter  itself  to  enable  us 
to  pronounce  a  confident  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  composi- 
tion; but  it  is  recognized  by  writers  who  are  silent  with 
respect  to  the  Epistle  of  James.''^^ 

VI.  Purpose  of  Writing 

The  epistle  was  called  out  by  some  special  emergency. 
Some  individuals  had  been  active  in  propagating  false  doc- 
trines and  Jude  was  sure  that  they  would  lead  to  corrupting 
practices,  and  he  wrote  to  warn  his  readers  against  them. 
It  is  not  likely  that  there  were  any  organized  heretic  and 
hostile  sects  at  this  time;  but  if  these  individuals  had  been 
left  to  themselves  they  easily  might  have  led  to  such  things. 
Jude  contemplated  such  a  result  with  horror,  and  in  the 
denunciative  and  vehement  style  of  the  Old  Testament 
prophets  he  inveighed  against  their  villainies  and  their  in- 
subordinations. He  was  a  fiery,  devoted  soul,  and  this 
epistle  of  protest,  and  warning,  and  exhortation,  sent  out 
it  may  be  to  the  Christians  of  all  Palestine,  has  preserved  to 
our  day  a  sample  of  his  zeal  for  the  common  salvation  and 
his  devotion  to  the  cause  of  the  common  Lord. 


"Salmon,  Introduction,  p.  472. 


A  CLOSING  WORD 


A  CLOSING  WORD 

Our  work  upon  the  Special  Introduction  to  the  books  of 
the  New  Testament  has  now  been  finished.  We  have  tried 
to  determine  the  circumstances  occasioning  the  composition 
of  each  book,  the  aim  and  object  of  its  writing,  the  certain  or 
probable  place  of  its  composition,  its  reception  and  its  his- 
tory. We  have  endeavored  to  reproduce  all  the  essential 
facts  concerning  the  author  of  each  book,  his  characteristics 
and  biography,  and  the  traces  of  his  personality  which  his 
pen  has  fixed  for  us.  In  some  cases  we  have  outlined  the 
argument  or  have  given  a  synopsis  of  the  contents  of  the 
books,  and  in  all  cases  we  have  attempted  to  lay  the  founda- 
tions for  more  careful  and  detailed  study  in  the  future  days. 

Moses  went  up  "unto  the  mountain  of  Nebo,  to  the  top 
of  Pisgah,"  and  there  the  Lord  showed  him  all  the  promised 
land.  These  four  volumes  have  given  us  Pisgah  views  of 
the  Pauline  Epistles,  the  Johannine  Writings,  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  the  remaining  New  Testa- 
ment Epistles.  We  have  seen  the  main  outlines  of  the  New 
Testament  promised  land,  and  the  relative  sizes  and  posi- 
tions of  its  various  parts,  and  their  relations  to  each  other  and 
the  whole.  We  have  swept  them  all  in  one  panorama.  We 
have  some  general  conception  of  the  book.  Its  separate  parts 
are  full  of  wonders  and  beauties  all  their  own,  and  they  will 
repay  minute  and  diligent  exploration.  This  introductory 
work,  this  general  view,  is  simply  preliminary  to  the  work 
of  detailed  interpretation. 

Moses  died  there  in  Moab  and  never  entered  into  per- 
sonal possession  of  the  promised  land.  It  would  be  fatal 
to  the  purpose  for  which  these  four  volumes  were  written 
if  their  readers  after  the  Pisgah  view  they  have  been  given 

243 


244         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

were  not  fascinated  with  the  prospect  set  before  them  and 
filled  with  a  desire  to  go  on  and  possess  this  land  and  make 
it  all  their  own.  These  books  are  merely  preparatory  to 
that  task. 

We  recall  one  of  the  closing  words  of  Paul  to  his  beloved 
child,  Timothy;  and  we  make  it  our  last  exhortation  to  any 
one  who  may  read  any  or  all  of  these  books,  "Give  diligence 
to  present  thyself  approved  unto  God,  a  workman  who 
needeth  not  to  be  ashamed,  handling  aright  the  word  of 
truth,"!  or,  "cutting  a  straight  course  through  the  word  of 
truth."  We  believe  that  all  which  has  been  written  in  these 
books  will  be  helpful  to  that  end.  We  beHeve  that  in  many 
instances  it  will  be  impossible  to  handle  the  word  of  God 
aright  without  a  knowledge  of  the  facts  which  they  con- 
tain.   It  is  only  in  that  faith  that  we  have  written  them. 

The  verb  in  the  original  of  that  passage  in  Second  Timo- 
thy is  a  compound  signifying  "cutting  a  straight  course 
through."  The  figure  may  hi^ve  been  suggested  by  those 
old  Roman  roads  which  went  in  straight  lines  from  the 
golden  milestone  in  the  Forum  to  the  farthermost  reaches 
of  the  Empire.  They  turned  aside  for  no  obstacle.  They 
never  took  the  easy  way  around.  They  always  went  the 
straight  way  through.  The  rivers  were  bridged,  the  moun- 
tains were  tunneled,  the  low  places  filled  up  and  the  rough 
places  made  smooth.  They  went  straight  as  an  arrow  to 
their  mark.  That  verb  may  suggest  that  the  Christian 
worker  ought  to  know  his  New  Testament  so  well  that  he 
can  go  like  one  of  those  old  Roman  roads  straight  to  any 
truth  he  may  desire  to  find  or  to  use  in  it. 

Many  go  around  all  the  difficult  places.  They  find  them- 
selves utterly  unable  to  cut  a  straight  course  through  them. 
Many  wander  through  the  New  Testament  as  if  they  were 
in  a  morass  with  no  sure  footing  or  as  if  the  book  were  a 

•  2  Tim.  2.  15. 


A  CLOSING  WORD  245 

fog-bank  in  which  no  one  by  any  possibility  could  find  his 
way.  Many  instead  of  cutting  a  straight  course  all  the  way 
through  the  divine  revelation  content  themselves  with  fol- 
lowing some  little  bypath  of  sectarian  interest  or  merely 
curious  value,  and  while  they  make  themselves  master  of  all 
the  texts  which  bear  upon  their  peculiar  folly  or  fad  they 
never  have  any  glimpse  or  any  conception  of  the  vast  ex- 
tents of  truth  they  have  left  unexplored. 

It  is  not  an  easy  task  to  become  a  master  of  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  the  labor  of  a  lifetime  to  become  familiar 
with  the  whole  of  its  contents  and  to  understand  their  mean- 
ing. All  that  these  four  volumes  contain  is  intended  simply 
to  get  us  ready  for  that  task.  To  become  a  competent  in- 
terpreter any  man  must  begin  with  these  things  and  then  go 
on  to  study  long  and  hard.  He  must  give  diligence  to  make 
himself  approved  unto  God.  He  never  will  be  able  to  drive 
a  straight  furrow  until  by  diligent  study  he  has  acquired 
proficiency  and  efficiency  and  sufficiency  in  this  field;  and 
without  these  he  will  be  unapproved  of  God  and  many  a 
time  he  will  be  put  to  shame. 

From  Pisgah's  height  let  us  now  go  down  to  live  in  this 
land  and  to  cut  straight  courses  through  it  for  ourselves  and 
for  others  until  the  wayfaring  man  shall  rejoice  in  it  and 
all  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  find  good  roads  and  safe 
guidance  through  it  until  they  come  to  Zion  with  everlasting 
joy  upon  their  heads.  The  blessing  of  our  God  will  attend 
all  who  assist,  however  humbly,  in  this  endeavor. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

We  give  an  alphabetical  list  of  a  few  good  books  on  each  of  the 
subjects  treated  in  this  volume,  and  we  star  some  of  the  best  of 
these. 

I.  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament 

Adeney,  Walter  F.     A  Biblical  Introduction,  New  Testament. 
Allen    and    Grensted.     Introduction    to    the    Books    of    the    New 

Testament. 
Bacon,  B.  W.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 
Bleek,  Friedrich.     Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament. 
Book  by  Book. 
Books  of  the  Bible. 

Clemen,  Carl.     Entstehung  des  Neuen  Testaments. 
Cone,  Orello.     The  Gospel  and  its  Earliest  Interpretation. 
Davidson,   Samuel.     An   Introduction  to   the   Study  of  the   New 

Testament. 
Dods,  Marcus.     An  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 
Eichhorn,    Johann    G.         Historisch-Kritische    Einleitung    in    das 

Neue  Testament. 
♦Farrar,  Frederick  W.     Early  Days  of  Christianity. 

Messages  of  the  Books. 
Fraser,  Donald.     Lectures  on  the  Bible. 
Harnack,  Adolf.     Das  Neue  Testament  um  das  Jahr  200. 

Die  altchristliche  Literatur. 
Holtzmann,  H.  J.     Lehrbuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung. 

in  das  Neue  Testament. 
Julicher,  Adolf.     Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament. 
Martin,  G.  Currie.     The  Books  of  the  New  Testament. 
*McClymont,  J.  A.     The  New  Testament  and  its  Writers. 
Michaelis,  Johann  David.     Introduction  to  the  Divine  Scriptures 

of  the  Covenant. 
Milligan,  George.     The  New  Testament  Documents. 
*Moffatt,  James.    Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 
Peake,  Arthur  S.    A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 
PuUan,  Leighton.    The  Books  of  the  New  Testament. 
Reuss,    Edward.     Geschichte   der   heiligen    Schriften   des    Neuen 

Testaments. 

249 


250         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Salmon,  George.     Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 

Sanday,  W.     Inspiration. 

Strong,  A.  H.    Popular  Lectures  on  the  Books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Von  Soden,  Hermann.    The  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature. 

Weiss,  Bernhard.  A  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Willett  and  Campbell.     The  Teachings  of  the  Books. 
♦Zahn,  Theodore.     Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 

11.  Commentaries  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

Angus,  Joseph.     Schaflf's  Popular  Commentary. 

Aquinas,   Thomas.     Expositio   super   Epistolam   Sancti    Pauli   ad 
Hebraeos. 

Bengel,  J.  A.    Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament. 
*Bleek,  Franz.    Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer. 

Calvin,  John.    Commentary  on  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Chrysostom,  John.     Homilies  on  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Cone,  Orello.     International  Handbooks  to  the  New  Testament. 
♦Davidson,  A.  B.    Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes. 
*Delitzsch.     Commentary  on  the  Hebrews. 

Dods,  Marcus.     Expositor's  Greek  Testament. 

Ebrard,  H.  A.     Olshausen's  Commentary. 

Farrar,  F.  W.    Cambridge  Greek  Testament. 

Goodspeed,  E.  J.    The  Bible  for  Home  and  School. 

Hollman,  Georg.     Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments. 

Kay,  William.     Speaker's  Commentary. 

Lowrie,  S.  T.    An  Explanation  of  Hebrews. 

Liinemann,  Gottlieb.     Meyer's  Commentary. 

Mitchell,  A.  F.    The  Westminster  New  Testament. 

Moll,  C.  B.     Lange's  Commentary. 

Moulton,  W.  F.     Ellicott's  Commentary. 

Peake,  A.  S.     The  New  Century  Bible. 

Rendall,  Frederic.    The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Stuart,  Moses.     Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Tholuck,  Andreas.    Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Vaughan,  C.  J.    The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Vincent,  M.  R.    Word  Studies  in  the  New  Testament. 

Von  Soden,  H.    Hand-Commentar. 
♦Westcott,  B.  F.     The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Whedon,  D.  D.    Whedon's  Commentary. 

Wickham,  E.  C.    Westminster  Commentaries. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  251 

III.  Expositions  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

♦Dale,  R.  W.    The  Jewish  Temple  and  the  Christian  Church. 
♦DuBose,  W.  P.     High  Priesthood  and  Sacrifice. 

Eager,  A.  R.     The  City  of  the  Living  God,  Hebs.  12.22-24. 

Edwards,  T.  C.    Expositor's  Bible. 

Maurice,  F.  D.    The  Warburton  Lectures  of  1846. 
♦Nairne,  Alexander.     The  Epistle  of  Priesthood. 

Owen,  John.     Exercitations  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Peake,  A.  S.    Heroes  and  Martyrs  of  the  Faith,  Hebs.  11. 

Radford,  J.  Grange.     The  Eternal  Inheritance. 

Rotherham,  J.  B.     Studies  in  Hebrews. 

Saphir,  Adolph.    Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Vaughan,  C.  J.     The  Heroes  of  the  Faith.     Hebs.  il. 

Westcott,  B.  F.     Christus  Consummator. 

IV.  Devotional  Studies  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

Chadwick,  G.  A.     A  Devotional  Commentary. 
Clarke,  Adam.     Clarke's  Commentary. 
Henry,  Matthew.    Henry's  Commentary. 

Hoare,  J.  Gurney,    The  Foundation  Stone  of  the  Christian  Faith. 
Meyer,  F.  B.     The  Way  into  the  Holiest. 

Moule,    Handley    C.    G.      Messages    from    the    Epistle    to    the 
Hebrews. 
♦Murray,  Andrew.    The  Holiest  of  All. 
Porter,  S.  J.     The  Twelve  Gemmed  Crown. 

V.  Theology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

Bailey,  G.     Leading  Ideas  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
*Bruce,  A.  B.    The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  The  First  Apology  for 
Christianity. 
Menegoz,  E.     La  Theologie  de  L'Bpitre  aux  Hebreux. 
Milligan,  George.     The  Theology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Rendall,  Frederic.     The  Theology  of  the  Hebrew  Christians. 
Riehm,  E.  C.  A.    Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebraerbriefs. 

VI.  The  Epistle  of  James 

Ackworth,  John.     Life's  Working  Creed. 
Bassett,  F.  T.    Catholic  Epistle  of  St.  James. 
Beyschlag,  W.     Meyer's  Commentary. 
Brown.    The  Devotional  Commentary. 


252         THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  EPISTLES 

Carr,  A.    Cambridge  Greek  Testament. 

Cellerier,  J.  E.     fitude  et  Commentaire. 

Cullen,  A.  H.     The  Teaching  of  James. 

Dale,  R.  W.    Discourses  on  the  Epistle  of  James. 

Deems,  C.  F.    The  Gospel  of  Common  Sense. 

Peine,     P.       Der     Jakobusbrief     nach     Lehranschauungen     und 
Entstehungsverhaltnisse. 

Gloag,  P.  J.     Popular  Commentary. 

Grafe,  E.    Die  Stellung  und  Bedeutung  des  Jakobusbriefes. 

Heisen.     Novae  Hypotheses  interpretandse  Epistolae  Jacobi. 

Hort,  F.  J.  A.     Text  with  Introduction  and  Commentary  as  far 
as  4.7- 

Huther,  J.  E.    Meyer's  Commentary. 
♦Johnstone,  R.     Lectures  Exegetical  and  Practical. 

Knowling,  R.  J.    Westminster  Commentaries. 

Kogel,  R.    Der  Brief  des  Jakobus. 
♦Mayor,  J.  B.    The  Epistle  of  St.  James. 

Meinertz,  M.     Der  Jakobusbrief  und  sein  Verfasser. 

Mitchell,  A.  F.     The  Westminster  New  Testament. 

Oesterley,  W.  E.     Expositor's  Greek  Testament. 

Parry.    A  Discussion  of  the  General  Epistle  of  James. 
♦Plummer,  A.     Expositor's  Bible. 

Plumptre,  E.  H.     Cambridge  Bible. 

Robertson,  A.  T.    Practical  and  Social  Aspects  of  Christianity. 

Romanes,  Ethel.     Meditations  on  the  Epistle  of  St.  James. 

Ropes,  J.  H.     The  International  Critical  Commentary. 

Scott,  Robert.     Speaker's  Commentary. 

Smith,  H.  Maynard.     The  Epistle  of  James. 

Spitta,  F.     Der  Brief  des  Jakobus. 

Stier,  R.    The  Epistle  of  James  Expounded. 

Taylor,  J.  F.    The  Apostle  of  Patience. 

Theile,  C.  G.  G.     Commentarius  in  Epistolam  Jacobi. 

Von  Soden,  H.    Hand-Commentar. 

Weiss,  Bernard.     Der  Jakobusbrief  und  die  neuere  Kritik. 

VII.  The  First  Epistle  of  Peter 

Bigg,  C.     International  Critical  Commentary. 

Cook,  F.  C.    Speaker's  Commentary. 

Hart,  J.  H.  A.    Expositor's  Greek  Testament. 

Hort,  F.  J.  A.    The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  i.  1-2.  17. 

Johnstone,  Robert.     The  First  Epistle  of  Peter. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  253 

*Leighton,  Robert.     A  Practical  Commentary  on  the  First  Epistle 
General  of  Peter. 
Lumby,  J.  Rawson.     Expositor's  Bible. 
Mason,  A.  J.     Ellicott's  Commentary. 
Plumptre,  E.  H.     Cambridge  Bible. 
Salmond,  S.  D.  F.    Schaff's  Commentary. 
Von  Soden,  H.    Hand-Commentar. 

VIII.  The  "Second  Epistle  of  Peter" 

Bennett,  W.  H.    The  New  Century  Bible. 

Cone,  Orello.     International  Handbooks  to   the  New  Testament. 
HoUman,  Georg.     Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments. 
Lumby,  J.  R.    Speaker's  Commentary. 
Plummer,  A.    Ellicott's  Commentary. 
Salmond,  S.  D.  F.     Schaff's  Commentary. 

Spitta,  Friedrich.    Der  zweite  Brief  des  Petrus  und  der  Brief  des 
Judas. 

IX.  The  Epistle  of  Jude 

Angus,  Joseph.     Schaff's  Popular  Commentary. 
Burger,  Karl.     Strack-Zockler  Commentary. 
Huther,  J.  E.  Meyer's  Commentary. 
Lumby,  J.  R.     Speaker's  Commentary. 
Mayor,  J.  B.     Second  Peter  and  Jude. 
Plummer,  A.    Expositor's  Bible. 
Plumptre,  E.  H.     Cambridge  Bible. 
Salmond,  S.  D.  F.     Pulpit  Commentary. 
Strachan,  R.  D.    Expositor's  Greek  Testament. 

The  articles  in  Hastings's  Bible  Dictionary,  Hastings's  Dictionary 
of  the  Apostolic  Age,  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the 
Gospels,  Cheyne's  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  the  International  Standard 
Bible  Encyclopaedia,  and  other  general  authorities  may  be  consulted 
with  profit. 


INDEXES 


I.    INDEX  OF  NAMES 


Abbott,  192,  200,  202,  217 

Ackworth,  251 

Adeney,  62,  75,  105,  164,  218,  249 

Alexander,  57 

Alford,  56,  63,  68,  105,  165,  192, 

200 
Allen,  249 
Ambrose,  191 
Andrews,  46,  47 
Angus,  56,  200,  250,  253 
Apollinaris,  228 
Aquinas,  250 
Aristion,  58 

Athanasius,  28,  191,  239 
Augustine,  29,  30,  56,   138,   191, 

229,  230,  239 
Ayles,  75 

Bacon,  31,  68,  75,  107,  164,  249 

Bailey,  251 

Barth,  62,  75,  106 

Bartlet,  62,  71,  75,  105,  164 

Bartmann,  io6 

Basil,  189 

Basilides,  182 

Bassett,  251 

Baumgarten,  68 

Baumgarten-Crusius,  65 

Baur,  65,  68,  107,  192,  239 

Belser,  63,  75,  105 

Bengel,  56,  67,  200,  250 

Bennett,  253 

Benson,  200 

Bertholdt,  192 

Beyschlag,  71,  75,  105,  156,  164, 

251 
Beza,  31,  50 
Biesenthal,  56 
Bigg,  168,  177,  183,  188,  192,  199, 

200,  252 
Bisping,  56,  71 
Blass,  20,  62 
Bleek,  31,  34,  45,  56,  63,  71,  75, 

106,  164,  192,  200,  220, 249, 250 


Boehme,  56,  67 

Bousset,  75 

Brown,  251 

Bruce,  31,  41,  51,  52,  65,  71,  251 

Bruckner,  75,  106,  107,  192,  200 

Bryennios,  238 

Bullock,  75 

Bunsen,  63,  68,  105,  192 

Burger,  253 

Caesar,  39 

Caius,  29 

Cajetan,  108 

Calvin,  26,  30,  50,  57,  165,  173, 

191,  217,  250 
Camerlynck,  192 
Cameron,  62 
Campbell,  250 
Carlstadt,  12 
Carpzov,  45,  46 
Carr,  105,  252 
Cellerier,  252 
Chadwick,  251 
Chapman,  58 
Charles,  231 
Chase,   164,   190,   191,   192,   193, 

200,  218,  220,  238,  239 
Cheyne,  253 

Chrysostom,  56,  71,  189,  230,  250 
Clarke,  20,  165,  233,  251 
Clemen,  75,  249 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  24,  26,  57, 

90,  166,  183,  189,  208,  220,  229, 

231.  239 
Clement  of  Rome,  28,  42,  56,  107, 

189 
Clericus,  63 

Cone,  75,  249,  250,  253 
Conybeare,  68 
Cook,  252 
Comely,  106 
Cramer,  56,  57 
Credner,  63,  67,  200,  239 
Crell,  57 


257 


258 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


CuUen,  252 
Cyprian,  29,  189 
Cyril,  108,  191,  208 

D'Abbadie,  209 

Dale,  251,  252 

Dante,  208 

Davidson,  65,  68,  71,  75,  85,  86, 

107,  192,  200,  220,  249,  250 
Deissmann,  20 
Delitzsch,  17,  23,  26,  47,  52,  57, 

71.  250 
De  Lyra,  68 
De  Pressens^,  63,  192 
De  Wette,  63,  71,  75,  164,  192, 

200 
Didache,  1 89,  238 
Didymus,  107,  190,  228,  239 
Dietlein,  200 
Dillenseger,  192 
Dindorf ,  63 
Diognetus,  107,  182 
Dionysius,  28 
Dioscorides,  214 
Dods,  65,  105,  249,  250 
DoUinger,  57 
Du  Bose,  251 

Eager,  57,  251 

Ebrard,  57,  75,  250 

Edwards,  22,  250 

Eichhom,  65,  68,   164,   192,  200, 

239 
Ephraem,  107,  191,  208 
Epiphanius,  83 
Erasmus,  30,  56,  108,  192 
Erdmann,  105 
Eusebius,  11,  22,  24,  26,  27,  71, 

90,  93,  107,  166,  183,  189,  190, 

208,  210,  237,  238 
Euthalius,  68 
Ewald,  65,  71,  75,  117,  164,  167, 

200,  239 

Falconer,  192,  194 

Farrar,  31,  32,  34,  63,  75,  89,  106, 
164,  167,  175,  187,  192,  200, 201, 
217,  225,  226,  232,  249,  250 

Feiknoser,  63 

Feine,  252 

Felten,  106 

Field,  57 

Findlay,  71,  75 


Forster,  56 
Eraser,  249 
Friedlander,  21 
FronmuUer,  200 

Galen,  214 

Gardiner,  35,  36,  49,  62 

Gibson,  105 

Gloag,  252 

Gobar,  29 

Godet,  37,  56,  71,  75,  192,  219 

Goodspeed,  62,  68,  75,  250 

Grafe,  252 

Grau,  62 

Gregory  of  Nazianzen,   62,    107, 

189 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  189 
Grensted,  249 
Greswell,  166 

Grimm,  65,  71,  75,  164,  165 
Grotius,  31,  57,  192,  200 
Guericke,  63,  192,  200 
Gumey,  106 

Haring,  75 

Harman,  192 

Hamack,  59,  68,  75,  107,  192,  200, 

209,  220,  239,  249 
Harris,  59 
Hart,  177,  252 
Hase,  165 
Hastings,  31.  253 
Hatch,  164,  192,  200 
Haupt,  202 
Hausrath,  65,  75,  107 
Hayes,  32,  38,  39,  121,  122,  124, 

134,  142 
Hefele,  62 

Hegesippus,  92,  93,  237 
Heigl,  56 
Heinrichs,  68 
Heinrici,  62 
Heisen,  252 
Hengstenberg,  200 
Henkel,  192 
Henry,  126,  251 
Herder,  200 
Hennas,  107,  182 
Heumann,  63 
Hicks,  58 
Hilary,  30 
Hilgenfeld,  47, 63,  68,  75, 107, 192, 

200, 220,  239 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


259 


Hippol3rtus,  29 

Hoare,  251 

Hodge,  109 

Hofmann,  56,  67,  105,  167,  192, 

200,  239 
Hollman,  75,  250,  253 
Holtzheuer,  56 
Holtzmann,  28,  47,  65,  68,  75,  192, 

200,  220,  249 
Hort,  71,  106,  164,  167,  196,  252 
Howson,  68,  141,  165 
Hug,  56,  71,  106,  164,  200 
Huther,  105,  164,  192,  200,  252, 

253 


Ignatius,  107,  189 


Immer,  47,  192 

Irenaeus,  29,  42,   107,   183,   189, 

229,  238 
Itala,  238 

Jacobus,  67 

Ja(X)by,  106,  192,  220 

Jerome,  29,  30,  56,  71,  166,  191, 

229,  230,  239 
Johnstone,  165,  252 
Julicher,  47,  65,  68,  75,  107,  192, 

200,  209,  218,  249 
Justin  Martyr,  46,  107,  189,  238 

Kay.  56,  75.  250 
Keil,  62,  71,  75,  239 
Keim,  75 
Kern,  106,  192 
Klostermann,  63 
Kluge,  65 
Knowling,  252 
Kdgel,  252 
Kostlin,  47,  65,  68 
Kruger,  105 
Kubel,  62,  75 
Kuhl,  209 
Kurtz,  63,  68,  75 

Lange,  63,  75,  192,  200 
Lardner,  75 
Lechler,  105 
Le  Clerc,  166 
Leighton,  253 
Lewin,  51 
Lewis,  57,  75 
Lightfoot,  164,  219 
Lindsay,  75 


Linus,  57,  58 

Lipsius,  65 

Lowndes,  57 

Lowrie,  250 

Ludwig,  68 

Lumby,  169,  192,  200,  239,  253 

Lunemann,  63,  71,  75,  250 

Luther,  22,  30,  50,  63,  64,  85,  99, 

108,  109,  134,  192,  200,  239 
Lutterbedc,  63 

Mack,  67 

Maclear,  226 

Maier,  62,  200 

Mangold,  68,  105,  192 

Mansel,  200 

Marsh,  48 

Martin,  102,  249 

Mason,  253 

Maurice,  251 

Mayerhoff,  192,  200 

Mayor,  85,  94,  96,  105,  117,  200, 

252.  253 
McCaul,  56 

McClymont,  62,  167,  249 
McGiflfert,  62,  65,  68,  75,  107 
Meinertz,  252 
Melanchthon,  30 
M6n6goz,  65,  75,  251 
Methodius,  208 
MichaeUs,  165,  200,  249 
Mill,  56,  75,  106,  166,  200 
MiUigan,  62,  68,  75,  249,  251 
Moffatt,  65,  68,  164,  167,  192,  200, 

203,  213,  214,  220,  234,  249 
Moll,  65,  71,  75,  250 
Mommsen,  96 
Moorehead,  192 
Moule,  251 

Moulton,  J.  H.,  59,  102 
Moulton,  W.  F.,  63,  250 
Muller,  63 
Munster,  67 
Murray,  251 
Muratorian  Fragment,  11,  29,  42, 

107,  183,  208,  238 
Mynster,  56 

Naime,  251 

Neander,  105,  164,  192,  200,  239 

Neudecker,  65 

Nicephorus,  231 

Niemeyer,  121 


260 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


Noack,  41 
Noesselt,  67 
Norton,  63 
Novatian,  61 

Oesterley,  252 
Olshausen,  56 
Origen,  II,  22,  27,  28,  31,  34,  37, 

107,   183,    189,    190,   228,  229, 

230,  231,  233,  239 
Osiander,  63 
Overbeck,  28,  62 
Owen,  56,  251 

Pantaenus,  24,  25 

Papias,  166,  182 

Parry,  252 

Paulus,  56 

Peake,  59,  68,  107,  200,  249,  250, 

251 
Pearson,  166 
Perdelwitz,  58 
Perpetua,  208 

Pfleiderer,  47,  52,  63,  68,  75,  192 
Philastrius,  191 
Philip  of  Side,  237 
Phillips,  23,  34 
Philo,  42,  43,  44,  45,  46,  47,  48, 

52,  60,  63 
Photius,  29 

Plummer,  192,  200,  217,  252,  253 
Pltimptre,  41,  46,  63,  68,  105,  164, 

192,  200,  252,  253 
Polycarp,  107,  182,  189 
Porter,  251 
Pott,  166 
Priscillian,  191 
PuUan,  249 

Radford,  251 

Ramsay,  51,  58,  68,  75,  173,  192 

Rees,  48 

Reithmaier,  56 

Renan,  62,  68,  75,  105,  164,  182, 

192,  220 
Rendall,  33,  34,  35,  36,  49,  65,  67, 

75,  250,  251 
Resch,  63,  64 
Reuss,  21,  63,  68,  192,  200,  239, 

249 
R6ville,  68,  75,  107 
Riehm,  63,  71,  75,  251 
Ritschl,  62,  68,  105 


Roberts,  75 
Robertson,  1 10,  252 
Romanes,  252 
Ropes,  75,  84,  252 
Roth,  67 
Rothe,  63 
Rotherham,  251 
Rovers,  75 
Rtifinus,  189,  191 

Sabatier,  106,  192 

Salmasius,  192 

Salmon,  62,  71,  75,  105,  164,  167, 

183, 188, 192, 200, 209,  239, 240, 

250 
Salmond,  253 

Sanday,  75,  162,  192,  209,  250 
Saphir,  56,  251 
Scaliger,  192 
Schafer,  164 

SchaflF,  17,  23,  50,  65,  75,  200 
Schenkel,  68,  75,  200 
Schiele,  59 

Schleiermacher,  68,  239 
Schmidt,  62,  67,  106,  192 
Schneckenburger,  68,  105 
Scholten,  63,  75,  io6 
Schott,  63,  71 
Schtdtz,  62 
Schulz,  68 
Schulze,  63 
Schurer,  68 
Schwegler,  47,  68,  192 
Scott,  252 
Selwyn,  63 

Semler,  63,  67,  192,  200,  239 
Serapion,  210,  211 
Seyffarth,  65 
Sheldon,  218 

Sieflfert,  164,  167,  200,  239 
Siegfried,  45 
Simcox,  57,  192 
Simon,  31 
Smith,  H.  M.,  252 
Smith,  W.  R.,  65 
Sozomen,  208 

Spitta,  82,  192,  195,  200,  252,  253 
Stanley,  105,  165 
Stein,  67 

Stevens,  75,  105,  192 
Stier,  57,  200,  252 
Storr,  56,  67 
Strachan,  190,  220,  253 


INDEX  OF  NAMES 


261 


Strong.  250 
Stuart,  56,  75,  250 

Taylor,  252 

Tertullian,  29,  61,  183,  189,  229, 

230,  239 
Thales,  215 
Thayer,  36 
Theile,  105,  252 
Theodore,  189,  238 
Theodoret,  71,  189 
Theophilus,  189 
Theophylact,  71 
Thiersch,  62,  66,  71,  75,  105,  164, 

192,  200 
Tholuck,  22,  34,  63,  71,  75,  250 
Trenkle,  106 
Twesten,  62 

Ullmann,  62,  68,  192 

Vaughan,  24,  65,  71,  75,  250,  251 
Vincent,  250 
Volkmar,  62,  68,  75,  107 
Von  Soden,  46,  65,  68,  75,  107, 
192,  220,  239,  250,  252,  253 

Walker,  62,  67 
WaU,  67 


Warfield,  188,  192 

Weber,  67 

Weiffenbach,  106 

Weiss,  31,  36,  62,  71,  75,  105,  165, 

192,  200,  217,  250,  252 
Weizsacker,  65,  68,  75 
Welch,  57 
Wemle,  45 
Wesley,  114,  115 
Westcott,  23,  30,  40,  65,  68,  71, 

75.  196,  250,  251 
Wetstein,  68,  200 
Whedon,  26,  46,  56,  250 
Wickham,  250 
Wieseler,  62,  68,  75 
Wiesinger,  io6,  200 
Willett,  250 
Windischmann,  192 
Wolf,  200 
Woll,  67 

Wordsworth,  51,  56,  106,  200 
Wrede,  75,  107 

Zahn,  20,  28,  55,  61,  62,  68,  75, 
94,  105,  164,  188,  192,  195,  200, 
238,  239,  250 

Zeller,  107 

Ziegler,  63 

Zwingli,  30 


II.    INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


Genesis 

22.  l6f,  40 

Exodus 

24.  8,  40 
Deuteronomy 

32.  35,  40,  51 
2  Samuel 

1.  5,  40 
Isaiah 

2.  13,  40;  40-66,  23 
Jeremiah 

31-  33,  84 
Enoch 

10.  15-16,  231;  21.  6,  231 
Esdras 

12.  42,  207 
Matthew 

I.  19,  116;  5-  16,  158;  5-  34-37, 
104;  5.  48,  102;  6.  25-34,  158; 
7.  I,  104;  7.  7,  102;  7.  16-20, 
105;  7.  24-26,  103;  10.  2,  235; 
10.  28,  157;  14.  28-31,  133;  16. 
16,  123,  148;  16.  18,  139,  147; 

16.  22,  123;  16.  23,   123,  147; 

17.  25-26,  149;  18.  21-35,  151; 
19.  27,  151;  19.  27-29,  128;  21. 
42,  148;  22.  21,  158;  23.  12,  104; 
24-  33,  105 

Mark 

I.  32-37,  130;  3.  16,  235;  9. 
2-7,  128;  II.  23,  103;  14.  27- 
31,  128;  14.  29,  131;  14.  37,  136 

Luke 
4.  25,  229;  5.  1-6,  125;  5.  8,  129; 
6.  16,  235;  6.  20,  103;  6.  24-25, 
103;  13-  23-30,  178,  179;  22. 
31,  153;  22.  32,  139;  22.  33, 
159;  22.  49-50,  122;  24.  8-12, 
132 

John 

I.  29,  159;  I.  42,  139;  5.  31,  109; 
6.  68,  148;  8.  14,  109;  13.  l-io, 
126;  13.  4-6,  151;  13.  17,  103; 

13.  36-37,  129,  133;  14.  I,  157; 

14.  22,  235;  16.  29-30,  131;  20. 
3-8,   132;  20.   29,    158;  21.  3, 


131;  21.  7,  122,  132;  21.  15-17, 
159;  21.  17,  138;  21.  21-22,  129 
Acts 

1.  13,  235;  3.  15,  148;  4.  II, 
148;  5.  30,  154;  6.  5,  97;  6.  9, 
97;  7.  22,  229;  7.  38,  229;  10. 
34,  160;  10.  39,  154;  II.  4-16, 
126;  12.  17,  90;  13.  6-41,  36; 
14.  14,  60;  15.  6-29,  91;  15.  22, 
57;  15-  39,  60;  18.  24-28,  62; 
18.  26,  63;  22.  1-21,  36;  21.  18, 
91;  21.  21,  54;  21.  24,  54;  28. 
17-20,  36 

Romans 

2.  6-10,  113;  3.  28,  108;  12.  19, 
51;  13.  7,  162 

1  Corinthians 

I.  12,  62;  3.  4-6,  62;  3.  22,  62; 
4.  6,  62;  10.  4,  229;  15.  26,  51; 
15-  27,  51;  16.  12,  62,  63 

2  Corinthians 
9.  8,  113 

Galatians 

1.  I,  49;  I.  18,  91;  I.  19,  91; 

2.  9,  61,  91;  2.  12,  91;  2.  13,  60; 
2.  14,  60;  3.  19,  229;  5.  3,  54 

Ephesians 

2.  8-9,  108;  2.  10,  113 
Philippians 

4.  8,  204 
2  Thessalonians 

2.  17,  113 
2  Timothy 

2.  15,  244;  3.  8,  229 
Titus 

3-  13,  62 
Hebrews 

I.  I,  41;  I.  2,  42,  43;  1.  3,  43; 

1.  3-4,  43;  I-  6,  43;  I-  8,  43; 

2.  1-4,  38;  2.  3,  49,  50,  59;  2.  8, 
51;  2.  14,  51;  3-  7-19.  38;  3-  9, 
74;  3.  17,  74;  4.  I,  59;  4-  7,  40; 
4.  12,  44;  4.  12-14,  45;  4.  14, 
44;  4.  14-16,  38;  5-  i-io.  39, 
44;  5.  II,  68;  5.  11-6.  20,  38; 


263 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


263 


5.  12,  68;  6.  13,  40;  7.  3,  44; 
7.  5,  60;  7.  9,  60;  7.  II,  60;  7. 
25,  44;  7.  26.  44;  8.  4,  74;  8.  13, 
75;  9.  20,  40;  10.  1-4,  74;  10.  5, 
39;  10.  i9-39»  38;  10.  24,  59; 
10.  25,  59;  10.  30,  40,  51;  10. 
32,  59;  10.  32-34,  75;  10.  34,  68; 

10,  36,  75;  10.  37,  75;  II.  10, 
75;  11.37,229;  12.  1-13.  19,38; 

12.  4,  68;  12.  12,  75;  13.  2,  69; 
13-  5,  45;  13-  7,  68,  75;  13.  14, 
75;  13-  15,  61;  13.  22,  61;  13. 
23,  51.  69;  13-  24,  73 

James 

I.  I,  82,  83,  90;  I.  2,  104;  I. 
3-4,  113;  I.  4,  102;  I.  5,  102; 
I.  6,  84,  97,  99,  103,  113;  I.  10- 

11,  100;  I.  II,  84,  97;  I.  15,97, 
100;  I.  17,  100;  I.  18,  84,  100; 
1.  22,   103;   I.  23-24,  98,   lOl; 

1.  25,   103,  104;  2.  I,  82,  113; 

2.  1-4,  98;  2.  2,  83;  2.  2-4,  84; 
2.  4,  99;  2.  5,  99;  2.  6,  99;  2.  7, 
99;  2.  8,  104;  2.  8-12,  83;  2.  8- 

13,  86;  2.  12,  104;  2.  13,  105; 
2.  14,  99;  2.  15,  98;  2.  16,  98, 
99;  2.  17,  108;  2.  21,  83,  84; 
2.  22,  114;  2.  23,  1X3;  2.  24,  108; 

2.  25,  84;  3.  I-I2,  84-98;  3.  4-5, 

100;  3.  5,  100;  3.  II,  84,  99,  100; 

3.  12,  84,  99,  100,  105;  3.  17, 
98;  3.  18,  100;  4.  I,  99;  4.  4,  84, 

99,   100;  4.  4-6,  84;  4.  5,  99; 

4.  8-9,  104;  4.  10,  104;  4.  10- 

12,  86;  4.  II,  83,  107;  4.  II-12 
104;  4.  12,  84,  99;  4.  13-16,  98 

4.  13-17,   86;   4.    14,   99,    100 

5.  I,  103;  5.  1-6,  98;  5.  3,  100, 
5.  4,  83,  100;  5.  6,  116;  5.  7,  84, 


100;  5.  7-11,  84;  5.  9,  105;  5. 
II,  84;  5.  12,  104;  5.  13,  107; 
5.  17,  84,  86,  229;  5.  18,  84 

1  Peter 

I.  I,  165;  I.  2,  176;  I.  3,  148; 
1-3-4,  157;  1-4,  152;  I.  5,  168; 
I.  8,  158;  1.  II,  154,  156;  I.  12, 
169;  I.  15,  176;  I.  17,  161,  170; 

1.  18-19,  159;  I.  21,  157;  2.  2, 
170;  2.  4-8,  146;  2.  9,  160;  2. 
II,  171;  2.  12,  158,  169;  2.  13- 
17,  150;  2.  15,  171;  2.  16,  171; 

2.  17,  157,  158;  2.  21,  169,  171; 

2.  21-24,  154;  2.  25,  160,  169; 

3.  1-2,  169;  3.  7,  148;  3.  8-9, 
151;  3-  13-14,  157;  3-  15,  157; 
3-  18,  155;  3.  18-20,  176-182; 
3.  21-22,  157;  4.  I,  155;  4.  6, 
177;  4.  8,  151;  4.  12,  153;  4.  13, 
155,  156,  169;  4.  15,  171:4.  16, 
157;  4.  17,  160;  5.  I,  155,  156, 
169;  5.  2,  160,  169,  175;  5.  2-4, 
160;  5.  3,  175;  5.  4,  152,  157, 
169,  175;  5-  5,  152;  5-  7,  158; 
5-  8,  153,  175;  5,  8-9,  153;  5. 
10,  153,  156,  159;  5-  12,  168 

2  Peter 

1.  3,  204;  I.  4,  204;  I.  16,  195, 
204;  I.  18,  195,  212;  I.  19-21, 
206,  207;  2.  2-3,  212;  2.  3,  204; 

2.  20,  196;  2.  22,  214;  3.  I,  195; 

3.  1-2,  212;  3.  2,  213;  3.  3-5, 
211;  3.  4,  212;  3.  5,  215;  3.  7, 
215;  3.  10,  214,  216;  3.  12,  216; 
3.  15,  192;  3,  16,  213 

Jude 

I,  225;  2,  225;  5-7,  225;  6,  228; 
8,  225;  16,  225;  19,  225;  20-21, 
225;  22-23,  225;  25,  225 


III.    INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Africanus,  Epistle  to,  27 
Alexandria,  24,  31,  60 
Alexandrian  thought,  21,  41 

school,  24 
Alexandrinus,  codex,  40,   63,  77, 

205 
Akhmim,  208,  210 
Amanuensis,  28,  95,  194 
Ambrosian  library,  231 
Amos  and  James,  87 
Ananus,  93 
Andrew,  96 

Anonymity  of  Hebrews,  18 
Anti-legomena,  12 
Antioch,  61 
Antioch,  synod  of,  24 
Antiochian  school,  24 
Apocalypse  of  Peter,  207-209,  211, 

213,  216,  220 
Apocalyptical  phraseology,  232 
Apocryphal  books,  41,  88,  117 
ApoUos,  31,  62-64 
Aquila,  56,  59,  62,  64 
Assumption  of  Moses,  218,  231- 

232 

Baalam,  205 
Babylon,  164-167 
Barnabas,  29,  59-62,  65,  189 
Bruce,  230 
Bunyan,  93,  97 
Bums,  97 

Cassarea  Philippi,  126 
Canonicity,  12 
Carthage,  synod  of,  30,  108 
Character  of  James,  91-93,  II7~ 
118 

of  John,  132 

of  Peter,  121-145 
Claromontanus,  codex,  77 
Clement,  Epistle  of,  28 
Clement  of  Rome,  56,  206-207 
Commission  to  Peter,  159 
Confession,  the  Great,  123 
Contradictions  harmonized,   109- 
114 


Corinth,  62,  63 

ComeUus  and  Peter,  126,  160-161 
Creation  from  water,  215 
Cyprus,  60 

De  Foe,  94 

Denial,  the  great,  137-138 
Destruction  by  fire,  215-216 
Disappointment  of  Christian  Jews, 

70 
Dispersion  of  the  Jews,  83 
Distinct  theology  in  Hebrews,  21 
Domitian,  237,  239 
Draught  of  fishes,  124-125,  128- 
129 

Ecclesiasticus,  88,  89 
Egyptian  versions,  191 
Enoch,  Book  of,  228,  229-231 
Ephraemi  Rescriptus,  codex,  205 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  61 
Example  of  Christ,  171 
Exhortations  in  Hebrews,  38 

Faith,  in  James  and  Paul,  iii- 
112 

Forgiveness,  unlimited,  150-151 
Formulae  of  citation,  41-45 

Gadara,  95 

Gahlee,  95 

Geneva  Bible,  30 

Gethsemane,  153 

Gizeh  museum,  208 

Glory  through  sufferings,  1 55-157 

Gospel  according  to  Peter,  210, 

211,  216 
Greek  of  Hebrews,  19-20,  27,  32, 
34-35,  36,  37 

of  James,  95-97 

of  Peter,  167-168 

Hapax  legomena,  168 
Harrowing  of  Hell,  176-182 
Hebrews,  a  literary  masterpiece, 

^9  .    , 

a  mysterious  epistle,  17 
not  a  translation,  27 


264 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


26s 


Hippo,  synod  of,  29 
Holiness,  outward,  in  James,  114 
Holy  places,  212-213 
Hospitality  at  Jerusalem,  69 
Human  nature,  in  Peter,  I2l 
Humility,  a  girdle,  152-153 
Hyperbole,  Peter's,  130-131 

Impetuosity  of  Peter,  121-130 
Inaccuracies  in  Hebrews,  49 
Interest  in  life,  Peter's,  148-149 
Interpretation,  allegorical,  22,  47, 

48 
Itala,  II,  12,  187 

James,  last  of  prophets,  87 

presiding  at  Jeiiisalem,  90-91, 
92 
Jesus  and  James,  1 15-118 
Jewish-Alexandrian  school,  42 
Jonah,  139 

Josephus,  93,  96,  202-205 
Judas  Barsabbas,  235 

Iscariot,  235 

Maccabeus,  235 

of  Damascus,  235 

of  Galilee,  235 

the  apostle,  235-236 
Justification,  in  James  and  Paul, 


Last  Supper,  125-126 
Law,  in  Hebrews,  53 
Linus,  Pope,  57 
Logos  doctrine,  42,  43,  44 

title,  44,  45 
Longfellow,  142 
Luke,  19,  26,  35,  57 
Luther,  on  James,  108,  109 

Mark,  57,  165 

Matthias,  election  of,  133-134 

MeddUng,  172-174 

Mediating  character  of  Hebrews, 

22 
Medical  terms,  214 
Melchizedek,  17,  43,  44,  48,  67 
Milk,  unadulterated,  170-171 
Modem  character  of  Hebrews,  23 
Morals,  Christian,  in  James,  83- 

84,  88-90 
Muratorian  Fragment,  11,  29,  42 
MiazzUng  critics,  171 


Old  Testament  character  of  James, 

83,  85-87 
Optimism  of  Peter,  143 
Outline  of  Jude,  226-227 
Oxyrynchus  papyrus,  77 

Palestine,  in  James,  116 
Palsied  man's  cure,  1 1 1 
Papacy  and  Peter,  140-41 
Paronomasia,  27 
Parousia,  197,  211 
Peshito,  II,  12,  28,  187,  236,  238 
Petrine  passage,  146-148 
PhiHp  the  apostle,  96 

the  deacon,  58 
Philo,  206 

Philonian  phraseology,  42,  206 
Pisgah  views,  243-244 
Platonic  doctrine,  46 

Ideas,  45 
Portrait  of  Peter,  143-145 
Priscilla,  59,  62,  64 

Quotations  from  Old  Testament, 
40 

RadicaUsm  of  Hebrews,  54,  76 
Raphael,  66 

Rebuke,  the  Great,  123,  136-137 
Respect  of  persons,  170 
Resurrection  appearance  to  Peter, 

181-182 
Rome,  28,  29 

Salvation,  for  few?  178-179 

Samaria,  61 

Septuagint,  39 

Sermon  on  Mount,  82,  86,  90,  102 

Shakespeare,  97 

Sifting  of  Peter,  141,  153 

Silas,  56,  166 

Silvanus,  166,  167,  168,  182,  192, 

195 

Simeon,  192 

Sinaiticus,  codex,  77,  205 

Sociology  of  James,  115 

Style  of  Hebrews,  32,  34,  35,  36 

of  James,  93-105 

of  Paul,  32,  33,  36 

of  Peter,  167-169,  175 

of  Wendell  Phillips,  33 

of  Daniel  Webster,  33 


266 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Sufferings  of  Christ,  154-155 
Synagogues,  Christian,  83 

Targum  of  Onkelos,  40 

Temple  tax,  149-150 

Thaddeeus,  235-236 

Thales,  215 

Timothy,  26,  64,  65 

Traditions,    in    New   Testament, 

228-229 
Trajan,  238 
Transfiguration,  127-128 

Uniqueness  of  Hebrews,  17 

Value  of  Hebrews  to  Jews,  55 
Vaticanus,  codex,  40,  77,  191,  204 


Version,  Authorized,  19 

American  Revised,  19 

EngUsh  Revised,  19 
Vespasian,  93 
Vocabulary,  of  Hebrews,  36 

of  Luke,  36 

of  Paul,  36 
Vulgate,  191 

Wisdom,  Book  of,  41 

Wisdom  of  Solomon,  88 

Words  characteristic  of  Hebrews, 

37 
of  Paul,  37 
Works,  in  James  and  Paul,  112 

Zenas,  57 


Date  Due 

1 

:^     SS-     . 

WvlQW 

m  ',:^''-  ■*■ 

1 

1*^  '^ 

3 

! 

An   a 

^^^'o  ^ 

J 

«IV  7  -  *4 

3 

re 

iViR   I  n  'f' 

FACULTY 

^'^^(^ULL 

fA^Sm 

Em^^^miI^Imp 

l»wr 

f 

